[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 89 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4127-S4144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 250, S. 
1940.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
  The Senator from Montana.


                           Agriculture Reform

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the farm bill and 
recognize the fine work the Senate Agriculture Committee did in 
bringing this bill forward.
  I am disappointed, to say the least, that this bill is bogged down in 
legislative games. This bill is too important for folks to play 
politics. If we want to talk about a lack of predictability, this is a 
prime example. We should be passing a bill and instead games are being 
played.
  Agriculture is the largest industry in Montana. Montana's farmers and 
ranchers produce the food that powers the Nation. Providing an 
effective safety net for those of us in production agriculture is 
important, and it is potentially very costly. It would have been easy 
for the Senate Agriculture Committee to write a bill that keeps 
spending at the levels of the last farm bill, but they did not.
  This bill recognizes the fiscal challenges we face. It cuts more than 
$23 billion, more than double the amount proposed by the Simpson-Bowles 
Commission.
  Due to the good work of the Senate Agriculture Committee, this bill 
produces meaningful savings and reduces the number of programs at the 
Department of Agriculture. At the same time the bill preserves a strong 
safety net for farmers, invests in conservation and nutrition and 
institutes much needed reforms.
  I have offered amendments to address the issues that still face 
farmers and ranchers around the country. The first is my provision to 
ensure that farmers will be able to buy public varieties of seeds. My 
amendment will make sure the Department of Agriculture follows through 
on the government's commitment to public seed varieties. It ensures 
that the USDA will devote the resources necessary to support a strong 
public breeding program and develop public plant and animal varieties. 
For too long the Agriculture Department has failed to promote public 
seed varieties. The USDA must support diverse seed research that 
farmers can adapt to various growing conditions.
  My amendment will not solve the problem, but it is a necessary first 
step to ensure that farmers have a choice of what kind of seeds to 
purchase.
  I have also introduced an amendment that takes a proactive approach 
to protect our country's livestock producers. Back in 2009, Senator 
Barrasso and I wrote a new law to help livestock producers get 
compensation for losses related to wolves. Any producer will tell us 
they would rather prevent predation than get compensated for a loss, 
but losses do happen. A number of States receive some assistance from 
that program. That is why I have introduced an amendment to help 
producers protect their livestock from the threat of predation. It is a 
commonsense solution to support livestock producers who live near 
protected populations of predators.
  Speaking of commonsense amendments, I am also offering what some have 
called the biggest package of sportsmen's bills in a generation. My 
sportsmen's act combines over 20 different sportsmen bills. It comes in 
response to the concerns I have heard as a chairman of the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus.
  What I hear most often from sportsmen is the importance of access to 
public lands. That is why this bill dedicates funding to ensure 
sportsmen's access to some of the best places to hunt and fish in this 
country.
  Some folks might ask why is this important, but hunting and fishing 
is a way of life in places such as Montana. In fact, one in three 
Montanans hunts big game and over 50 percent fish. For us, it is not 
just recreation, it is a critical part of our economy. It drives and 
sustains jobs.
  So Senator Thune and I, as cochairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's 
Caucus, have combined the best bills and ideas from Republicans and 
Democrats. In addition to preserving access to public lands, it 
reauthorizes several vital conservation programs and preserves our 
shooting heritage. That is why it has the support in a wide variety of 
sportsmen and conservation groups. Neither party has a monopoly on good 
ideas.
  My sportsman's act takes the best from the House bill and the best 
from both sides of the aisle in the Senate to move the ball forward for 
sportsmen and sportswomen in Montana and the Nation. By adding this 
sportsmen's package to the farm bill, we will conserve some of our most 
productive habitat, passing on hunting and fishing traditions to future 
generations and entrusting them to those who care about them the most.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Tester are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. TESTER. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, earlier this week I came to the 
Senate floor to speak about the importance of the forestry title in 
what is a bipartisan farm bill we are considering right now as I speak.
  In my previous remarks, I spoke about a growing emergency in our 
Nation's forests caused by the largest bark beetle outbreak in our 
recorded history--an outbreak that is projected to kill nearly every 
lodgepole pine in Colorado.
  I know the Presiding Officer from the neighboring State of New Mexico 
is experiencing these same conditions in his State. The Forest Service 
has estimated that 100,000 dead trees are falling in our forests every 
day. Hard to imagine, but their estimates are such: 100,000 trees every 
day. That means our landscapes are littered with tinder ready to burn, 
which, combined with the hot dry summer we are already experiencing, is 
a recipe for a disastrous fire season.
  Mother Nature bats last, which means much of what we face is out of 
our control. But we can act, and we must act, in order to manage the 
magnitude of the crisis in our home States.
  In some ways--I know the Presiding Officer sees this the same way I 
do--the forests in Colorado are the canaries in the coal mine that tie 
us into and identify the effects of a changing climate. Warmer 
temperatures and drought conditions have exacerbated beetle 
infestations in our forests, and we are now dealing with an 
unprecedented combination of explosive fire season events.
  There is a raging Colorado wildfire today, as I stand here, in 
Larimer County--the High Park Fire--and it continues to grow. It has 
consumed over 46,000 acres. It has claimed the life of a local 
homeowner, and it is causing devastating effects in the surrounding 
communities. As of first thing this morning, only 10 percent of the 
fire had been contained. We have made sure, though, that all available 
resources are dedicated to this effort. I am told we now have over 
1,000 firefighters on site,

[[Page S4128]]

which is good news. We will not know the true costs of the fire for 
some time, but it, undoubtedly, will have a lasting effect on my State.
  I want to assure Coloradans that I will continue to closely monitor 
the High Park Fire to ensure that firefighters on the ground have all 
the resources they need to beat back this devastating blaze. I also 
urge my fellow Coloradans to heed the warnings and follow the 
evacuation guidance of the firefighters who are tasked with keeping us 
safe. Most importantly, I ask that we keep these brave public servants 
in mind as they work to protect lives and personal property--especially 
as what is a very unpredictable fire progresses.
  Again, I know the Presiding Officer has had a series of fires in his 
State, and he knows the capricious nature of wildfire. I want to also, 
in giving a little more background, point out that the High Park Fire 
is burning predominantly on private land. But it is moving rapidly into 
a beetle-infested national forest. This is a reminder of exactly why we 
need flexibility to treat hazardous beetle-killed trees and to engage 
the public in the active and collaborative management of our Nation's 
forests.
  We cannot reverse the tragic loss of life and property that the High 
Park Fire and many other fires have caused, but it is essential that we 
take steps to understand what can be done in the future to better 
prevent, prepare, and respond to wildfires. We must learn more about 
the conditions that make those fires catastrophic.
  Let me start by talking about homeowners.
  Homeowners can create what we know in our States is called defensible 
space, depth space. That involves clearing brush, moving woodpiles, and 
looking at other actions through which we can protect structures. Those 
actions have been proven to be the hallmark of what has saved such 
properties in past fires.
  These are important takeaways we have learned in my State of Colorado 
in the wake of catastrophic fires, and they are also the result of 
subsequent stories and studies that I have called for to inform the 
public about what they can do to protect their homes and property.
  The same studies have also taught us that Federal forest management 
policies must prioritize tree removal around communities to protect 
homes, roads, and infrastructure--something I have fought to provide 
resources for over the last decade. The added benefit to these efforts 
is that they create local jobs and support the critically important 
timber industry in our States.
  But that is not all. We must also advance new policies that will 
actually help prepare our firefighters to combat these raging fires. A 
recent example of this is action the Senate took to pass a bill I 
cosponsored to expedite the purchase of much needed air tankers to 
fight wildfires. Our Nation's tanker fleet has aged and dwindled 
dramatically in recent years. Without sufficient air tankers, we are 
ill-prepared to respond to catastrophic fires--especially multiple 
fires at once. I am pleased the Congress passed this bill, and I 
understand the President is prepared to act quickly to sign the air 
tanker legislation into law. Still, we need to and we can do more.
  We need more flexibility to treat forests more comprehensively. I 
believe, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the forestry 
title of the farm bill is a good start. However, I believe it does not 
go far enough to authorize adequate resources to treat forests that 
have been affected by bark beetle infestations.
  The Forest Service's bark beetle strategy calls for doubling the 
number of acres it has been able to treat in past years. In other 
words, the Forest Service is saying: Look, we want to double what we 
have been doing. We believe we have the expertise to do that. What else 
do they need, though? They need money.
  In fiscal year 2011, the Forest Service allocated $110 million to 
treating acres affected by bark beetles in the Western United States. 
But if we are going to double that acreage, we are going to need more 
Federal support.
  A year ago I fought to increase the amount of funding the Forest 
Service had available to treat hazardous trees. I worked with the 
administration and strongly supported a reprogramming request that 
would have allowed the Forest Service to use extra money to treat 
problem areas in the West.

  The Senate supported this commonsense request. But, I have to tell 
you, unfortunately, the House Appropriations Committee stood in the way 
of getting these critical funds into the forests where it was and is 
still needed most. So that inaction meant that thousands of acres of 
beetle-killed trees were not treated--areas that are potentially now 
worsening the High Park Fire as we speak.
  In the new farm bill, the Agriculture Committee has authorized $100 
million for designated treatment areas affected by beetle infestation, 
which is less money than last year, and certainly not enough to double 
the number of acres that were targeted for fire prevention and tree 
removal.
  At the current authorization level of $100 million, the Forest 
Service simply will be unable to meet its goal. To help remedy this, I 
have filed a bipartisan amendment, No. 2295, with Senator Thune of 
South Dakota, which would increase the authorization for funding to 
$200 million to authorize adequate resources in order for the Forest 
Service to address these looming and immediate emergencies.
  I have been a strong advocate for finding ways to ensure we are 
prudent in how we spend taxpayer dollars, but the need to address this 
crisis is immediate and the threat to public health, safety, and our 
economy will only get worse, causing us to pay more later. Another way 
to put it is it is less expensive to prevent fires, to prepare for 
fires, than it is to fight fires and then be involved in the 
rehabilitation of those landscapes after those devastating fires are 
finally put out.
  In addition to the amendment I have filed with Senator Thune that 
would provide increased authorization for the funding of tree removal, 
I have also filed amendment No. 2294 that would extend Colorado's good 
neighbor authority.
  Good neighbor authority gives the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau 
of Land Management the capability and the power to enter into 
cooperative agreements with State foresters to plan and implement 
forest health projects on more acres more efficiently. This would give 
my State and other States the opportunity to collaborate with Federal 
agencies to perform forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration 
services--actions that a study I requested after the Fourmile Canyon 
Fire in Boulder County, CO, found firsthand helps agencies and 
homeowners better prepare to reduce the risk of damage and loss of life 
from wildfires.
  Lest viewers and those who are interested in wildfires think they are 
an aberration, wildfires are actually a fact of life in the West and in 
forests in general, and they will continue to occur over and over again 
in Colorado. But I am committed to doing everything possible to learn 
from every fire and take whatever precautionary measures we can, with 
the hope of saving more lives, property, and communities in the future.
  As I have said before--and we all know--wildfires can easily become a 
multimillion-dollar effort affecting every level of government. As the 
bark beetle epidemic continues to present a significant threat to our 
economy, critical infrastructure, and important natural resources, we 
must allocate resources to address this epidemic up front in a 
commonsense way.
  Again, I know the Presiding Officer has faced these challenges head 
on in his State. Some may see this as just solely a western problem, 
but I urge my colleagues to support bipartisan efforts to ensure that 
we manage our forests to reduce fire risk, protect water supplies, and 
bolster our economy.
  Forests all over our country are susceptible and vulnerable to fires. 
We can work together in the Senate to ensure that we have the tools to 
protect our forests and protect the communities and the people who live 
in those communities.
  I look forward to the Senate taking up these two important amendments 
in the near future as we hopefully move the farm bill to passage in the 
Senate and to the President's desk.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S4129]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Udall of Colorado are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  (The remarks of Ms. Murkowski are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I do week 
after week, and have since the health care bill was signed into law, 
with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I do that as 
someone who practiced medicine, taking care of families all around 
Wyoming for about a quarter century.
  I continue to hear great concerns from folks back home and across the 
country about the health care law. So often people ask the question: 
Does the President understand the health care law?
  Well, last week President Obama shocked a lot of Americans when he 
made a statement--not on the teleprompter but off script--that the 
``private sector was doing fine.'' He said the private sector was doing 
fine. He said the weaknesses in our economy had to do with State and 
local government.
  The words made it very clear to people in this country that the 
President is not in touch with what is happening in this country--
specifically with the economy.
  But then on Monday, the President said something else about the 
health care law that made it once again look as though he doesn't 
understand what is happening all across America. During an interview 
the President was doing with a local news reporter from Sioux City, IA, 
he actually was surprised to learn that his health care law is hurting 
small businesses--certainly hurting small businesses all across the 
country. He was surprised to learn of that.
  While the news doesn't come as a shock to most Americans, it 
definitely caught President Obama off guard. Here is what happened. The 
Iowa reporter told the President that one business in Iowa needed to 
``close up shop and move the jobs back to Wisconsin'' because of the 
President's health care law. The President's response to the reporter I 
found troubling. President Obama said:

       Yeah, that would be kind of hard to explain, because the 
     only folks that have been impacted in terms of the health 
     care bill are insurance companies.

  The President said that the only folks--only folks--who have been 
impacted in terms of the health care bill are insurance companies.
  That is why I continue to come to the floor with a doctor's second 
opinion, ever since Nancy Pelosi made the famous statement that ``first 
you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it.''
  I had hoped that by now the President would actually know what is in 
the health care law. By his statements to this reporter in Iowa, it 
certainly seems to me the President does not know what is in the health 
care law, does not know how it is impacting jobs and the economy in the 
United States. How on Earth can President Obama believe insurance 
companies are the only people impacted by the health care law? Small 
businesses all across the country are being slammed by the law's 
expensive mandates--the mandates that people have to have government-
approved insurance, which is much more expensive than what they had 
before. The insurance premiums that he promised would drop by $2,500 
per family have actually gone up higher and faster than if the law had 
never been passed. The President said if you like what you have, you 
can keep it. We know that millions of Americans who had insurance they 
liked are not able to keep it.
  The fact is that colleges are dropping their insurance plans for 
students because, under the President's law, those insurance plans were 
going to go up anywhere from 4 to 10 times more as a result of the 
mandates that those students buy government-approved levels of 
insurance, which was a lot more insurance than the students needed, 
wanted, or could afford. So the colleges are saying we cannot pass this 
expense on to students, so we are going to drop it entirely.
  It is astonishing that the President doesn't realize how many people 
are impacted in a bad way by his own health care law. He thinks it is 
only the insurance companies, but small business owners are forced now, 
because of this law, to choose between bad choices. One is that they 
can offer very high-cost government-approved insurance, making it much 
more expensive for them to try to run their business and hire workers 
in this time of significant uncertainty in the economy, or they won't 
offer any health coverage at all because they cannot afford the law's 
out-of-touch and expensive insurance mandates. The choice is completely 
unacceptable, and the President should know that.
  Someone in the White House ought to be informing the President. They 
ought to clearly be leveling with the President about the impact of his 
bill, his law, and his understanding of it, and what the impacts are on 
American families and the American economy. The private sector is not 
doing fine. This health care law negatively impacts people across the 
country, including many small business owners.
  The President also deserves to know from his advisers that his health 
care law is having a significant impact on American seniors.
  Earlier this week, Senator Coburn and I joined the rest of the 
Republican health care providers in Congress, in the House and Senate, 
and released a ``Doctor's Note on Medicare.'' This new report details 
how the President's health care law specifically makes it harder for 
America's seniors to get the care they need from a doctor they choose 
at a lower price.
  I want to walk you through this report. There is a section called 
``10 Facts Seniors Need to Know About Medicare's Future.'' I will focus 
on five of those.
  One, to control Medicare spending, instead of trusting seniors, the 
President empowered 15 unelected bureaucrats. That is right, the 
President set up the Independent Payment Advisory Board, people who 
would be politically appointed--not elected by the voters but unelected 
bureaucrats. They will be the ones in charge of deciding and 
controlling Medicare spending.
  Another is that doctors overwhelmingly believe the Independent 
Payment Advisory Board will hurt seniors' access to care. This is under 
the facts that seniors need to know about Medicare's future as a result 
of the President's health care law.
  In a recent survey, 80 percent of doctors said this Independent 
Payment Advisory Board, which the President liked and put in his health 
care law, will cut reimbursement rates to doctors, which will harm 
seniors' access to care.
  Now let's go to a third. Without congressional action, Medicare 
reimbursement rates will drop about 30 percent at the end of the year, 
which would harm seniors' access to care. That is in the law as it 
stands now. If the law isn't changed, that cut will automatically go 
into place, and it is going to be that much harder for seniors to get 
doctors. Seniors are very concerned right now about being able to find 
a doctor. If their doctor retires, they may have a hard time finding a 
new doctor. If the senior moves locations, they may have a hard time 
finding a doctor in that location. This is an increasing problem that 
is made worse by the health care law.
  I think the President deserves to hear that and to know that and to 
realize the impact his law has had on people way beyond, as he says, 
just insurance companies. The President also needs to know--because 
seniors know--that the President's health care law took $530 billion 
from Medicare--not to save Medicare, not to strengthen Medicare, but to 
spend on other programs not for seniors. The health care law cut more 
than $\1/2\ trillion from the Medicare Program to fund new government 
programs. Seniors realize this, and it is

[[Page S4130]]

time the President of the United States understood the impact of the 
decisions he made when he signed this health care bill into law.

  Many seniors on Medicare Advantage will lose their plan. More than 
one in four seniors are currently on Medicare Advantage. It is a choice 
they make. They know they are on Medicare Advantage. Over 11 million 
seniors are on Medicare Advantage. Yet, according to the Actuary of 
Medicare alone, by 2017, when the Medicare Advantage cuts in the 
President's health care law are fully implemented, roughly half--half--
of seniors who like the Medicare Advantage plan they have will lose it.
  The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. 
Perhaps he should have realized the bill he signed into law would cause 
him to break a number of the promises he made to the American people. 
That is another one of those broken promises. So the President 
promised: If you like what you have, you can keep it. But we find out 
many more people are not able to keep what they have. And the President 
said his plan would lower insurance costs by $2,500 per family. Yet we 
see insurance rates have gone up, and they are going up faster than if 
the law had never been passed in the first place.
  So the reality is from the time I gave my second opinion speech last 
week until today, the President needs to realize the private sector is 
not fine and his health care law hurts small businesses, hurts seniors, 
and hurts patients all across this country. If the President wants to 
do something to help the private sector, he should work with Congress 
to repeal his health care law and to replace it with better reforms 
that would actually be better for patients and providers and taxpayers.
  This health care law, as I see it, is bad for patients, it is bad for 
providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--
and it is terrible for the American taxpayer. What we need is health 
care reform that actually provides the care for people they need from a 
doctor they choose at a lower cost.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Sugar Program

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to multiple 
amendments to the farm bill that would undermine critical support for 
American sugar producers and the American jobs they create. These 
amendments would pull the rug out from underneath sugar beet producers 
in my home State of Montana. It would leave farmers and other sugar 
industry workers in Montana and across the country vulnerable to job 
loss. In these tough economic times, this is a step backwards in job 
creation, and that is a step we can't afford to take.
  Montana is the fifth largest sugar beet-producing State in the 
Nation. In 2010, our cash receipts totaled more than $66 million, and 
those dollars mean good-paying American jobs. That is why the farm bill 
continues the vital support that helps America's sugar producers 
sustain more than 140,000 jobs and nearly $20 billion in economic 
activity every year.
  Our sugar policy is a proven investment in American jobs at no cost 
to the taxpayer. That is right. Let me repeat that. The U.S. sugar 
policy doesn't cost American taxpayers a single cent. So why in the 
world would we want to get rid of this proven job creator at a time 
when jobs should be our No. 1 priority?
  The policy does not restrict access to lower sugar prices for 
manufacturers, but it allows sugar producers from Montana and the rest 
of the United States to compete in the world market with access to less 
quality sugar, cheaper labor, and fewer regulations. Other countries 
very strongly protect their sugar industry.
  Some argue our Sugar Program, while not costing the American taxpayer 
directly, costs them indirectly at the grocery store. But let me be 
very clear: For every $1 candy bar bought at a grocery store, only 2 
cents of that total cost is sugar. For every $1, only 2 cents of the 
cost of that candy bar is sugar.
  With no cost to the American people and proven benefits extending 
from rural farmers through the entire economy, this policy works. It is 
a lifeline to Montana's sugar beet farmers and the rural communities in 
which they live. I would not let us get rid of a policy that supports 
proven job creators at a time when we need jobs more than ever.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                             Food for Peace

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
address an issue related to hunger, a topic that is a significant 
component of the farm bill we are debating, and particularly to raise 
the topic associated with an amendment I have offered. It is amendment 
No. 2403.
  Most of us have heard the expression, since it is an old saying, that 
goes like this: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to 
fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.
  By teaching someone how to fish or how to grow crops, we help them 
provide food for themselves and for their families. The bill we are 
considering has funds set aside for a program called Food for Peace, 
title II. They are intended to do just that, to help combat world 
hunger and malnutrition. We have a long history in Kansas, Senator Dole 
being a prime example of someone who has cared greatly about hunger not 
only in the United States but around the world. The funds used here in 
Food for Peace are very important to us, certainly as a matter of 
humanitarian issues, but also to the security of our country and its 
future.
  There are funds designated within that title II, some to be used for 
emergency aid and some to be used for developmental aid, the difference 
being the ability to respond to an immediate crisis or disaster, and 
other funds, the developmental aid, to be used to improve the chances 
that crisis never occurs.
  The question I want to raise with my colleagues here in the Senate is 
how do we allocate the amount between emergency food aid and the amount 
of money we use to teach folks the skills necessary to help them 
survive when disaster strikes? We are not talking about any new 
spending, any new money; we are simply trying to address the issue how 
do we allocate what amount has already been decided upon by the 
committee.
  I have been to Darfur, for example, spent time in Sudan, and saw the 
efforts by many to keep people from starving. Those are very important. 
I am thankful for the generosity of Americans, both as charitable 
organizations and as taxpayers, who provide emergency food assistance 
to these people. We never want to have the kind of suffering we see 
there and other places around the world.
  But I am concerned about the allocation that is included in this bill 
and I have introduced an amendment to ensure that at least 20 percent 
of Food for Peace, the title II funds, is available each year for 
prevention-based programs that reduce hunger in poor, crisis-prone 
communities. If we can prevent the need for emergency food assistance 
and help more people gain the skills needed for their lifetime, then we 
should do that. That is what this amendment is intended to do.
  The legislation we are considering significantly reduces the minimum 
amount of funding for developmental programs that equip vulnerable 
people around the world to feed themselves. The farm bill, this farm 
bill we are debating, reduces by nearly 40 percent the amount of funds 
that would be used for the important work of development aid. Instead, 
it directs those dollars to emergency food aid. The amendment I am 
offering would raise the minimum amount that would be spent on 
developmental programs by 5 percent so we can prevent circumstances 
where people are starving and need that emergency aid.
  This has been an issue we have worked on for a long period of time.

[[Page S4131]]

This is my third farm bill as a Member of Congress. In the 2008 farm 
bill, we created a lockbox, an amendment I offered that was included in 
the 2008 farm bill, that set aside about $450 million for purposes of 
developmental aid, again trying to make certain we have the resources 
in place to reduce the chances we are going to need emergency aid. It 
is true that many countries have a high concentration of malnourished 
children, and subsistence farming usually goes hand in hand in those 
circumstances.
  Affected by droughts and crop failures, eroding soils, lack of 
sustainable income, these populations are short of food several months 
of the year and they oftentimes need emergency food aid as a result. As 
a consequence of that circumstance, even though title II emergency food 
aid programs are intended to be short-lived, lasting between a few 
months maybe up to a year, usually most emergency food aid is directed 
to the same areas, year after year, because of the continuing need. It 
is a reoccurring need, in fact, so year after year we are trying to 
provide emergency food aid to the same populations and the same areas 
and the same countries.
  My point is we would be wiser in spending our dollars by trying to 
reduce that reoccurring starvation, that recurring need, that lack of 
food, because of the amount and length of a food crisis and the need to 
stretch our taxpayer dollars as far as possible. Because using food aid 
more effectively is the key to success, the 2008 farm bill assured that 
a portion of that food aid would be combined with technical assistance, 
training, and business development to boost agricultural productivity, 
conserve natural resources, link farmers to markets, and improve child 
nutrition, incomes, and diets.
  That lockbox set aside about $450 million. It is expected, if this 
bill were fully funded, that these millions are nearly now $100 million 
less. So we are moving in the direction of providing a lot less 
developmental aid. In fact, in the 1970s when this program was amended 
and altered, 75 percent of title II money, of Food for Peace money, was 
set aside for developmental aid. Over time, that amount has been 
reduced, time and time again. Through economic empowerment, improved 
infrastructure, watershed innovations, these programs in developmental 
aid help protect and safeguard against the need for emergency aid. 
Providing a consistent and adequate level of funding for prevention-
based programs has been proven to work.
  For example, in Haiti, World Vision has been implementing a 5-year 
multi-year assistance program, supported by developmental aid funding. 
The central plateau region of Haiti has historically suffered from lack 
of adequate food, causing extremely high levels of poverty and stunting 
among children under 2 years of age. World Vision has worked with 
clinic and community health workers through a mobile clinic strategy to 
provide nutritional and primary health care support to mothers and 
children. During their last national nutrition survey, large parts of 
that central plateau moved from red and yellow, crisis and 
severe insecurity areas, to green, indicating the investment in 
preventing malnutrition using the nonemergency programs is an effective 
and worthwhile investment in fighting ongoing hunger and preventing 
additional use of emergency funds down the road.

  In Haiti we see the example of using the prevention dollars to reduce 
the need for disaster or crisis dollars. Title II prevention-based 
programs are implemented by private, voluntary organizations and co-
ops. They are supported, begun, by the American people. They have 
regular audits and oversight. We are talking about organizations such 
as World Vision, as I mentioned, Catholic Relief Services, Food for 
Hunger, Mercy Corps, Congressional Hunger, the United Methodist 
Committee. These are folks who are engaged day in, day out, year in, 
year out, in trying to prevent hunger from occurring or the 
circumstances which create hunger in a community from occurring. The 
inability to plan and predict the uncertainty of the amount of money 
that would be available by what we do each year in appropriations and 
what we do every few years in a farm bill makes their job much more 
difficult. So the consistency of having the resources available to 
fight and the need to fight the circumstances that create the need for 
crisis intervention is something that is important, as is the certainty 
that can come from knowing there will always be this certain amount of 
money available for prevention.
  Reasonable levels of food aid are important in both the urgent needs. 
There are going to be crises. Certain things happen--floods, natural 
disasters occur. We know we need to be able to respond quickly. But we 
also know we need to be able to reduce the incidence of hunger 
occurring time and time again in certain areas of the world. With this 
amendment, title II will still largely be used for emergencies but will 
increase by a modest amount the funding for developmental programs that 
helps eliminate the need for that emergency assistance down the road. I 
encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support this amendment.
  I know this has been a significant issue within the Senate Committee 
on Agriculture and I appreciate their consideration of this topic. I 
commend the chairperson, Senator Stabenow, and the ranking member, my 
colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, for their tremendous efforts 
trying to bring to the Senate a farm bill that meets both the needs of 
agricultural producers and the people they feed. I offer my sincere 
appreciation to both those Senators and other members of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee for their work.
  I particularly wish to express my gratitude for the Senator from 
Kansas, Mr. Roberts, for his continuing involvement in agriculture 
throughout his time as a Member of the House, chairman of the House 
Agriculture Committee, now the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee. His efforts on behalf of the folks back home as well as 
around the world are greatly appreciated by me.
  Again I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support an adequate 
portion of the Food for Peace resources being used to stave off 
reoccurring food crises, rather than just reacting to them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.


                           Food Stamp Program

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as we deal with the farm bill we have to 
acknowledge that 80 percent of that bill now is the SNAP program, or 
the Food Stamp Program. I will repeat that--80 percent of this bill. So 
we need to not call it the farm bill anymore. It needs to be considered 
primarily the Food Stamp bill as that's what it is.
  When we look at the bill, our sponsors are rightly pleased that they 
have tightened the belt of the farmers, they reduced some of the 
subsidies and programs, they created a little better policy, I believe, 
and they deserve some credit for that. But of the $800 billion that 
will be spent in the next 10 years, under current law--$800 billion 
compared to $200 billion in the rest of the farm program--for the $800 
billion they are only claiming a $4 billion savings.
  It is quite true that we in America do not want to have people 
hungry. We do not want to have people malnourished. What we want is to 
run a Food Stamp Program that has integrity, that creates an incentive 
for responsible personal behavior and that helps America to be a 
healthy nation.
  I do not think we are there yet. In fact, we have Members on the 
Democratic side who are opposing even this $4 billion reduction in 
projected spending. This is less than half of 1 percent. And some of 
them don't even want to have that. Cut the farmers, all right, whack 
them 10 percent; but don't make real cuts to anything else or deal with 
any other programs. So our challenge simply is to make sure that people 
who are truly in need get the benefits. My Republican colleagues and I 
see this as a program that is temporary, helping people through tough 
times and creating an incentive for them to move on, be successful, 
find work and take care of themselves and their dependents.
  I believe this chart will give some indication of the situation that 
we are in today. It is an accurate illustration of spending in this 
bill, the 2013 bill, which begins October 1 of this year. The Food 
Stamp Program will make up $82 billion out of the spending in this 
legislation that we are dealing with. In the bill, $6 billion will go 
to conservation programs--which is not really a

[[Page S4132]]

farmer's program, and they may get some benefits from it--another $6 
billion for commodities, which is the orange in the chart, and $8 
billion for crop insurance, which is the new fundamental basis of farm 
policy. I am not complaining that farmers are being squeezed. 
Hopefully, this has been done in a smart way that will also make those 
programs better. However, what I am suggesting is that there is 
virtually no change in the 80 percent of spending in this bill. We 
don't have the money to waste especially if it can be done better and 
smarter.
  The main farm provisions in the bill experience a $14.7 billion 
reduction. That is a reduction of nearly 10 percent of spending 
relative to the baseline. To add some context, if the food stamp 
portion were to be reduced by 10 percent, it would save the U.S. 
Treasury $75 billion. Food stamp spending has quadrupled since 2001. It 
doubled between 2001 and 2006. Some people say the reason food stamp 
use is up is due to unemployment and recession. Well, that is not the 
entire story. For example, from 2001 to 2006, under President Bush's 
time when the economy had a small recession but was moving along very 
strongly in 2006, it still doubled from 2001 to 2006. At that time 
unemployment remained at about 5 percent. It is now 8 percent. When 
food stamps were first expanded nationally, 1 in 50 Americans were on 
the program. Today that number has increased to 1 in 7.
  Are we confident that each of those seven Americans need this kind of 
subsidy? Are we sure that is needed? I believe we need to examine the 
program. If they need this benefit, let's get it for them. If not, 
let's not.
  There are nearly 80 welfare programs provided by the U.S. Government, 
and 17 are for food and nutrition support. I repeat, 17 programs are 
for food and nutrition support. The costs now exceed $700 billion 
annually for all of these Federal programs, food and others too, plus 
$200 billion in State contributions. So that is almost $1 trillion a 
year, which is so much money it is difficult to express.
  For example, an individual on food stamps may have a household that 
is eligible to receive and may receive $25,000 a year in total welfare 
support. We have a host of programs for which people can qualify, so we 
need to keep that in mind as we go forward. There is a patchwork quilt 
of Federal and State programs that help people in need. This is in 
addition to charitable and religious support that people can access.
  The farm bill proposes to permanently elevate food stamps far above 
prerecession levels. In 2008 we spent less than $40 billion on food 
stamps. I repeat, in 2008--just a few years ago--less than $40 billion 
a year. Food stamp spending over the next 10 years is estimated to 
average almost $80 billion. This is double the prerecession amount.
  This chart shows how we have grown from a little under $20 billion in 
2001 to over $70 billion in 2022. We can see a little decline there 
between 2013 and 2022. That chart is based on projections from the 
Congressional Budget Office and assume that the unemployment will begin 
to drop in the future--we hope this is correct. Even though 
unemployment is expected to fall below 8 percent, they are not showing 
that we are going to have a major dropoff in food stamp spending in the 
future. Hopefully, unemployment will be falling. Hopefully, we will get 
this economy on the right track.
  I would suggest the point that is revealed in this chart is that 
unemployment is not what is driving the food stamp increases. The 
increases far exceed the unemployment rate increases, and the decline 
from a projected reduction in unemployment is not very much either.
  Were food stamp spending returned to prerecession levels those, say, 
in 2007, and then they were indexed for inflation, it would produce for 
the U.S. Treasury a $340 billion savings. So I don't think in 2007 the 
numbers that were spent are totally disproportionate to what we would 
need today, and I believe if properly managed we could do better.
  The amendments I have filed--and there are four--address some of the 
perverse incentives for States to increase food stamp registration 
rather than an incentive to increase the integrity of the program.
  For example, one of the things we need to do is to deal with the 
Federal provision that provides bonuses to States that increase the 
number of people who are registered. States currently receive bonuses 
for increasing enrollment and running the Food Stamp Program. They 
don't get bonuses for efficiently managing the program to reduce fraud, 
they don't get bonuses for finding people who are on the program 
illegitimately and selling their benefits in the marketplace or 
otherwise abusing the program, they get bonuses for seeing how many 
people they can sign up. That is not a sound policy.
  The next amendment I have is Restoring the Asset Test for Food 
Stamps. You would think it is pretty well accepted that if a person has 
a certain amount of assets, they shouldn't have the government pay for 
their food. But through a system known as categorical eligibility, 43 
States have now provided benefits to individuals whose assets exceed 
the statutory limit for them. Only 11 States did that in 2007.
  Why? There are a couple of reasons. I guess one of them is they help 
get the incentive bonus for signing up more people. If they get around 
the asset test and sign up more people, maybe they get a bonus.
  What incentive does the State have to reduce the amount of dollars 
from Washington? They don't match a dime of it. What incentive do they 
have to reduce the amount of money--free money in their minds--from 
Washington going to the State? Not much really.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, if passed, this 
amendment would save $11 billion, and all it would do is to say that 
SNAP beneficiaries would have to comply with the requirements of the 
program before they get the food stamps. It is called categorical 
eligibility. If people qualify for any other welfare program, the 
States have been given the power to say they qualify for food stamps 
even though they don't meet the formal qualifications for the food 
stamp program. Let me say that again--if they qualify for these others, 
under categorical eligibility they are categorically entitled to food 
stamps. That is not a good policy. It does not appropriately target the 
correct population, and we should fix that.
  Another issue is what has been referred to as the LIHEAP loophole. 
This reform--and the amendment I have offered, and I hope we get a vote 
on it--requires households that receive larger food stamp payments on 
the basis of home energy expense actually provide proof of that 
expense. This is a real problem. States have been part of this, 
frankly. They have learned how to manipulate the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program money, and it creates an opportunity to have more 
people qualify for higher food stamp benefits than they are entitled 
to. It is not good policy and this abuse should be dealt with. The CBO 
says if that abuse were eliminated, it would save $9.5 billion over 10 
years in addition to the other savings in this bill.
  Then another amendment, called the SAVE amendment, would simply 
require that the Federal Government use a program called SAVE--similar 
to the E-Verify program--to ensure that those adults receiving benefits 
are, in fact, lawfully in the country. If they are not lawfully here, 
they should not be getting welfare support from the U.S. government. 
How basic is that? They just should not.
  One of the most important things we can do to restore integrity in 
our immigration system is to quit providing economic benefits for 
people who violate the law. This is the first thing we need to do. It 
is an important thing to do. So I think that would be an amendment we 
should include.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, Federal spending is set 
to increase 50 percent over the next 10 years. I repeat: Federal 
spending is projected to increase 50 percent over the next 10 years, 
and this creates a problem for us. Our per-person debt is worse than 
that of Portugal, Greece, Spain, or Italy.
  This is a chart that shows that. We didn't make up these numbers, and 
it is perfectly established that they are accurate.
  This raises a good question. What is the per capita debt of the 
United States per person? In other words, what

[[Page S4133]]

does the U.S. government owe? It is $49,800 per person--man, woman, and 
child in America. In Spain it is $20,000, in Portugal it is $22,000, in 
France it is $35,000, in Greece it is $40,000, in Italy it is $40,000, 
and in Ireland it is $46,000.
  This level of debt is not healthy for us. So the idea that we have an 
unlimited ability to throw money at every problem we have and that we 
don't have to make sure every single dollar we appropriate helps the 
people truly in need, and is wisely spent, is over. We have to end that 
concept. This government, this Congress, this administration has been 
far too blase about managing the people's money.
  It is like we just want to leave the money out there and maybe it 
will create a stimulus and somehow it will help the economy and we will 
give more than we need to give and not worry about it. We don't want to 
investigate anybody who rightfully qualifies for these benefits. We 
don't want to cut off anybody who truly deserves these benefits. That 
would be unkind. However, it is not unkind to insist that people meet 
the qualifications of the program. The people who don't meet the 
qualifications don't get the money. That is only common sense, and that 
is justice as Americans know it.
  It is amazing that 40 cents of every dollar we spend in our country 
today is borrowed. The United States is headed for what has been called 
the most predictable economic crisis in its history. The debt course we 
are on is unsustainable. We are headed to a debt crisis if we don't 
change where we are going, as every witness before the Budget 
Committee, of which I am ranking member, has told us. Yet many Senators 
in this body are not only unwilling to achieve more than $4 billion in 
savings from the $800 billion program, but some even consider $4 
billion too much to reduce from the program.

  The junior Senator from New York proposes to increase food stamp 
spending even more than the current growth we have seen, explaining 
that ``food stamps are an extraordinary investment because for every 
dollar that you put into the SNAP program [the food stamp program] you 
get out $1.71.'' I won't repeat that because this is what the director 
of the program said, or the Secretary of Agriculture, I believe. He 
said that for every dollar spent on food stamps, you get out $1.71. 
Under this reasoning, we ought to just increase the food stamp program 
10 times. Why not? Under this reasoning we are going to get even more 
money back. Somehow, it is going to create a stimulus and it is going 
to bring more money in for the Treasury and make the economy grow. Why 
don't we just pay for clothes, shoes, and housing? Why not? It is 
precisely this kind of thinking that has bled our Treasury of money 
that we need to pay for the demands this country has.
  I also think it is a moral issue. What is our policy objective? Is it 
our national goal to place as many people on welfare, food stamp 
support, as we can possibly put on that program? Is that our goal? Is 
that a moral vision for the United States of America, just to see how 
many people we can place in a situation where they are dependent on the 
Federal Government for their food? I just ask that. I think we should 
wrestle with that question.
  Under the current proposal, no fewer than one in nine Americans will 
be on food stamps at any point during the next 10 years. Which is the 
better goal--to permanently have one in nine Americans on food stamps 
or to have as many Americans as possible achieving financial 
independence?
  Left unattended, the safety net really can become a restraint, a 
trap. Welfare reform is guided by the moral principle that welfare 
support can become damaging not only to the Treasury of the United 
States but to the recipient. Over time, the trillions of dollars we 
spend on welfare programs--with the greatest of intentions, with the 
greatest desire to do good--can replace the normal support role of 
private family, church, and community. It can become a barrier to self-
sufficiency and an incentive not to be engaged in the tough, real world 
of work and competition. So I think it is not compassionate to increase 
without limit the size and reach of the Federal Government. The central 
premise of the American society is that the empowerment of the 
individual is always preferable to the empowerment of the state.
  The amendments we have spent a lot of time working on--each one of 
them is crafted to improve the program. None of them represent major 
cuts in the amount of spending that is involved in the food stamp 
program. For each one of them the biggest savings would be about $10 
billion, but in each case it is $10 billion that would be saved, that 
would make the program more efficient, that would improve the integrity 
of the program, and not reduce any of the benefits that will go to 
those who would qualify for food stamps under existing law. It would 
not reduce that.
  I am concerned that the majority leader has filled the tree on this 
bill. Senator Reid has basically taken control of the amendment 
process. So we have a bill moving through the Senate that will spend 
about $1 trillion over the next 10 years, and 80 percent of the 
spending in this bill will deal with food nutrition programs, with SNAP 
programs--80 percent of it--and we have only had one amendment that 
deals with that program--only one.
  We have been here for days without voting on anything.
  Senator Roberts is trying to get amendments from the Republican side 
to be voted on.
  The majority leader says: Well, I don't think I will approve that 
one. No, we don't want to vote on that. We have already voted on 
something like that. We are not going to vote on that. You have already 
had a food stamp amendment. We are not going to have any more food 
stamp amendments.
  That is the kind of talk that is going on here.
  This is the U.S. Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the 
history of the world--something we are exceedingly proud of--where we 
can have debate, vast, continuous, intense debate. It is part of the 
glory of this body. So now we have one person--the majority leader--
using a parliamentary technique called filling the tree and basically 
saying I don't get a vote on any of those amendments I just mentioned.
  I believe they are responsible amendments. I believe all four should 
be adopted. I believe it would make the food stamp program better. It 
would help ensure we have enough money to make sure the people who are 
in need get help. If we don't get off the debt course we are on, we are 
going to be in a crisis and all the programs are going to be cut--maybe 
more than we really need to cut them--because we have to get on the 
right course.
  So I am objecting to this. I am not happy about it. I don't think it 
is healthy. I do believe the majority leader has utilized this 
technique of filling the tree more than any majority leader in 
history--far more than any majority leader in history--and it is not a 
healthy trend for the Senate.
  We have always had a lot of amendments on the farm bill, and we need 
to have these amendments. So I hope and believe that--I hope we will 
get votes on these amendments. I hope that we will be able to debate 
these amendments and that we will be able to help improve the food 
stamp program.
  I want to mention one more thing. Senator Rand Paul offered an 
amendment earlier that did not pass that would have block-granted the 
money to the States. I am not sure--different people can disagree on 
exactly how he would go about that and whether he did it the right way 
and whether the spending level he chose was appropriate, but let me say 
this: A system in which the Federal Government gives an unlimited 
amount of money to the States creates a perverse incentive for the 
States to make sure they achieve every possible dollar from Washington. 
This system creates no incentive for the States to enhance the 
integrity of the program and to stop those who are abusing it, because 
when we spend State money to investigate and prosecute and stop abuse, 
we have reduced the treasury of the State. When we reduce the amount of 
food stamps pouring into the State, we reduce the amount of Federal 
money coming into a State--an additional adverse consequence 
economically for that State.
  So we need to create a situation in which the State is given a 
certain amount of money--a fair formula--and then they have the 
responsibility of making sure it goes to the right people. If poor 
people aren't getting enough

[[Page S4134]]

money, they will then have an incentive to identify those who are 
improperly getting the money, cut them off, and direct the money to 
people in need. We don't have that incentive today. That is one reason 
the food stamp program is not operating effectively.
  So I think Senator Paul was correct fundamentally in his approach 
that block-granting the food stamp program to the States would create 
the right incentive to make the program more effective, to create more 
integrity, and to make sure people most in need receive the benefits.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                              The Economy

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the Senator from 
Alabama for calling this body's attention once again to the debt crisis 
we face as a country. I was with some people just a little while ago, 
and I was telling them a story about a conversation I had in Colorado 
about our debt and our deficit and the moral obligation we have to our 
kids to actually deal with this problem and face up to the fact. My 
then-10-year-old daughter was with me, Caroline.
  We walked out on the front stoop of this place, and she said to me: 
Daddy.
  I said: What.
  She said: Just to be clear--she was making fun of me because I say 
that sometimes--she said: Just to be clear, I am not paying that back.
  That is the right attitude she ought to have and the right attitude 
children all across the country ought to have and the right attitude we 
ought to have. I look forward, when we get into this discussion this 
summer, to finding out how to find a bipartisan path through this 
morass so that Caroline Bennet doesn't have to pay back a debt she 
didn't accrue.
  I wanted to come to the floor today to talk about the economy because 
I think one thing we can agree on in this body for sure is that the 
best deficit reduction program we can find would be to get this economy 
moving again. I wanted to talk about one sector in particular that has 
created tremendous economic growth in Colorado; that is, the wind 
energy sector. I know my colleague from Colorado, Mark Udall, came down 
earlier today to discuss the same issue, and I so much appreciate his 
continued efforts in fighting for these jobs.
  Just a piece of context here. We face very significant structural 
issues in this economy today. I have brought this chart down here 
before, but what it shows is that our gross domestic product--our 
economic output--is actually higher today than it was when we went into 
the worst recession since the Great Depression. Our productivity is off 
the charts. That is the blue line, the second line. It has been going 
that way since the early 1990s because of our response to competition 
from China and India and other places, because of our use of 
technology, and because of the recession itself, which drove 
productivity straight up as firms all across the United States tried to 
figure out how to get through this tough time with fewer people. But 
median household income continues to fall in this country, and we have 
23 or 24 million people who are unemployed or underemployed, even 
though we are generating this economic output.
  I think there are two fundamental answers to this. One is education. 
The worst the unemployment rate ever got for people with a college 
degree in the worst recession since the Great Depression was 4.5 
percent. But the other is innovation. Jobs are going to be created 
tomorrow and next week and the week after that that have rising wages, 
not lowering ones, not falling ones. And this economic recovery, like 
the last economic recovery--those two together are the first recoveries 
we have had as a nation in our history where economic growth decoupled 
from job growth and wage growth. I don't know about the Presiding 
Officer, but that is what I hear about most in my townhall meetings at 
home.
  The wind production tax credit, it seems to me, cuts right to the 
core of whether and how we want to compete in this global and changing 
economy.
  Let me show another picture here. This is it. This is a factory in 
Brighton, CO--bricks and mortar, made in America. It is a wind 
production facility. We are not talking about some fly-by-night 
experimental industry here.
  This credit has triggered tremendous economic growth in Colorado and 
all across the country--good-paying jobs, manufacturing jobs here in 
the United States. As Representative Steve King, a Republican from 
Iowa, said recently in an op-ed he published, the production tax credit 
has driven as much as $20 billion in private investment. This is not 
some Bolshevik scheme. That is $20 billion in private investment 
supporting jobs here in the United States, manufacturing jobs here in 
the United States.
  Wind power accounts for more than one-third of all new U.S. electric 
generation in recent years. In Colorado alone, it has created 6,000 
jobs. It has moved our State toward a more diversified and cleaner 
energy portfolio. But because they can't get any certainty out of 
Washington, like everybody else, developers and manufacturers are 
already starting layoffs. They are laying off employees today in 
anticipation of the credit expiring at the end of the year.
  Vestas, which has a huge manufacturing footprint in Colorado, from 
Windsor all the way south to Pueblo, is poised to lay off 1,600 workers 
if we fail to act. It is hard for me to understand, when our concerns 
about the deficit and our concerns about economic growth are ones that 
we hear about every day on the floor, why laying off 1,600 workers in 
Colorado is a good idea. Iberdrola Renewables, also doing business in 
Colorado, has already laid off 50 employees. Nationally, 37,000 jobs 
are at risk, not to mention the ones we could have created after 2012 
but won't if we let this credit expire.
  I know sometimes I sound like a broken record, but the world is not 
going to wait for us. Our largest single export today is energy, 
actually--interestingly enough. That is a very recent occurrence that 
we became a net exporter of energy. Before that, our single largest 
export was aircraft. We build the best aircraft in the world. Mr. 
President, $30 billion a year is what that export is to the United 
States.

  China's export of solar panels last year was $15 billion--half our 
largest single export. They did not export 1 solar panel 10 years ago, 
and we invented the technology in the United States. In fact, some of 
us claim we invented it right at home in Colorado.
  I am sure China would love to have this business as well or we can 
get out of our own way and extend the PTC, extend the tax credit, save 
those jobs, and grow our own clean energy economy.
  This is not a partisan issue. I led a letter several months ago, 
where Republicans and Democrats from the Colorado delegation came 
together to urge a quick extension as part of the payroll deal. That 
effort, unfortunately, was not successful, nor were the others we have 
tried to take in the interim.
  Shortly after our letter I filed an amendment--a bipartisan 
amendment--with the Senator from Kansas, a fully paid-for 1-year 
extension of the credit. This place has become the land of flickering 
lights. We extend one thing for a month, we extend another thing for 2 
months.
  I am very proud of the work we are doing on FDA right now, which is a 
5-year reauthorization. But, my goodness, couldn't we extend this for a 
year to give people some degree of certainty, particularly when it is 
paid for?
  I thank Senator Moran, Republican from Kansas, for joining me--or for 
letting me join him--to lead that amendment.
  Following that, several colleagues and I have partnered with Senator 
Grassley and others to write a bill that would extend the credit for 2 
years. There is clearly plenty of bipartisan support out there, and I 
know the people in my State--whether Republicans or Democrats or 
Independents or not even thinking about that--I know they want us to 
get this done.
  Nearly 7,500 Coloradans have already signed a petition on my Web site 
supporting the wind production tax credit. I urge others today who are 
watching this to visit my Web site and please add their name.
  I conclude by asking why, when the economic stakes are as high as 
they are, the Congress cannot get its act together. We need to extend 
the wind production tax credit, and we need to do it now.

[[Page S4135]]

                              EQIP and CSP

  Mr. President, I rise to speak on Coburn amendment No. 2353, and I 
want to be the first to say how much I appreciate the efforts of my 
colleague from Oklahoma at deficit reduction. In fact, we are currently 
working together to promote a comprehensive approach to deficit 
reduction, and I deeply appreciate his leadership, which in many ways 
has been unparalleled on this issue. However, I have to oppose this 
particular amendment. I understand we are likely to consider the 
amendment this afternoon. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment 
by supporting the motion to table.
  This amendment will repeal the popular Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, EQIP, and the Conservation Stewardship Program, 
CSP. Both are critical programs authorized under the conservation title 
of the farm bill.
  In Colorado, I have heard time and time again from our farmers and 
our ranchers how critical these programs are to holding on to their 
family farm.
  EQIP, for example, is on the front lines of agricultural production. 
It helps farmers ensure that their operations contribute to clean water 
and clean air in our rural communities. It proactively and successfully 
addresses new and emerging resource issues to avert the need for 
regulation--to put our farmers and ranchers in a place where they have 
less regulation, not more, because of the work they are doing on the 
ground to conserve their lands.
  Let me give you one example from Colorado. EQIP resources have been 
used to ensure that the sage grouse stays off the endangered species 
list--a listing that would threaten ranchers all across the West. That 
is the result of the great work that has been done by farmers and 
ranchers in Colorado with EQIP.
  By providing resources to mark barbed wired fences--making them more 
visible to the threatened bird--EQIP is working for farmers and 
ranchers, and it is working well. It is the flagship of voluntary, 
incentive-based conservation programs, which is a direction I think we 
should be heading, and a direction we head in this farm bill.
  Both EQIP and CSP provide quantifiable benefits that are reflective 
of the varied conservation challenges all across our country. So I 
strongly support this new conservation title as we reported it out of 
the committee in a bipartisan vote.
  As I have mentioned, and has been discussed on this bill, this bill 
is also remarkable for the cuts it makes: $23.6 billion. To my 
knowledge, there is not any other committee in the Senate or any 
committee in the House of Representatives that has actually reached 
bipartisan agreement and, in this case, bipartisan consensus on budget 
cuts, which is the way we should be doing business around here because 
it is what the American people and the people in Colorado expect from 
us, particularly on these difficult questions around our deficit and 
our debt. And $6.4 billion of those cuts--$6.4 billion of that $23 
billion--came from the conservation title, not all of which I liked, 
but we made difficult compromises at the committee level, and we ought 
not make further cuts on the floor, especially to programs that make 
smart and effective investments in our rural communities.
  So I will oppose, for those reasons, amendment No. 2353 and support 
the motion to table, and I urge my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle to do the same.
  Finally, I wish to say thank you to the chairwoman of this committee 
and the ranking member, Debbie Stabenow and Pat Roberts, for their 
extraordinary bipartisan work in getting the bill this far. It is my 
fervent hope that leadership on both sides reaches an agreement on 
these amendments so we can move forward and do the right thing for our 
farmers and ranchers back home in Colorado.
  With that, I see my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, on 
the floor. I thank the Presiding Officer for his patience and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Presiding Officer and my friend from 
Colorado.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cybersecurity

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the urgent need 
for the Senate to adopt cybersecurity legislation.
  I begin by recalling a recent story in the Washington Post that 
detailed how a young man living an ocean away from us was able to use 
his computer to hack into the cyber control system of a local water 
utility here in the United States. It took him just 10 minutes and 
required no special tools or no special training.
  While the hacker could have taken over the water company's operations 
and caused real damage, instead he posted screen shots of his hack on 
the Internet to show that he had been there and prove his point that 
our Nation's Internet security is woefully lax. And it took very little 
in the way of resources or skill to penetrate it.
  This kind of story is but one piece of what I would call an avalanche 
of evidence showing that there is an urgent need to pass comprehensive 
cybersecurity legislation that will safeguard our critical cyber 
infrastructure.
  The fact is, as this 22-year-old's activities showed, and as 
authorities in the area, such as ADM Mike McConnell, the former 
Director of National Intelligence, have said, the cyber infrastructure 
which is owned by private entities is simply not adequately defended. 
And when it is not adequately defended--and here I am talking about 
vital national systems: The electric power grid, water companies, 
transportation systems, pipelines, et cetera, et cetera--when the cyber 
systems that control them now are not adequately protected, it means 
our Nation is not adequately protected because a cyber-attack can 
incapacitate vital national entities that we all depend on every day 
and, in fact, cause enormous harm and loss of life, as much as a 
conventional attack by air in earlier confrontations and conflicts.
  Yesterday the majority leader came to the floor of the Senate and 
spoke, I thought, eloquently about the urgency of the Senate adopting 
cybersecurity legislation. I wanted to come to the floor today to thank 
Senator Reid for that statement and to say, as chairman of the Senate 
Homeland Security Committee, how strongly I agree with him. Of course, 
we are not alone.
  A few days ago six of our Nation's most experienced national security 
leaders, spanning the last two-plus administrations, transcending any 
lines of partisanship, wrote a letter to Senator Reid urging him to 
bring up cybersecurity legislation ``as soon as possible.'' That is a 
quote: ``as soon as possible.''
  In that letter to both--not just to Senator Reid, but to Senator 
McConnell, the Republican leader, as well--former Department of 
Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff from the Bush administration; 
former Director of National Intelligence, ADM Mike McConnell, whom I 
referred to, from the Bush administration; former Deputy Defense 
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, also from the previous administration; former 
NSA and CIA Director Mike Hayden, also from the previous 
administration; former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN 
James Cartwright, and former Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn sent 
this letter--incidentally, to say what is already a matter of public 
record. In doing so, they express opinions that are quite similar to 
what we have heard from all the leaders of the current administration 
when it comes to security--Secretary of Defense Panetta, Director of 
National Intelligence Clapper, Director of the CIA Petraeus, and so on, 
and, of course, Secretary Napolitano at the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  I want to read from this letter from these national security leaders 
because it sums up where we are. I quote now:

       Given the time left in this legislative session and the 
     upcoming election this fall, we are concerned that the window 
     of opportunity to pass legislation that is in our view 
     critically necessary to protect our national and economic 
     security is quickly disappearing.

  In the letter they went on to say--and I quote again

       We--

  The signers of the letter--

     carry the burden of knowing--

  Along with a lot of the rest of us--

     that 9/11 might have been averted with the intelligence that 
     existed at the time. We do

[[Page S4136]]

     not want to be in the same position again when ``cyber 9/11'' 
     hits--it is not a question of whether this will happen; it is 
     a question of when.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     June 6, 2012.
       Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: We write to urge you to 
     bring cyber security legislation to the floor as soon as 
     possible. Given the time left in this legislative session and 
     the upcoming election this fall, we are concerned that the 
     window of opportunity to pass legislation that is in our view 
     critically necessary to protect our national and economic 
     security is quickly disappearing.
       We have spoken a number of times in recent months on the 
     cyber threat--that it is imminent, and that it represents one 
     of the most serious challenges to our national security since 
     the onset of the nuclear age sixty years ago. It appears that 
     this message has been received by many in Congress--and yet 
     we still await conclusive legislative action.
       We support the areas that have been addressed so far, most 
     recently in the House: the importance of strengthening the 
     security of the federal government's computer networks, 
     investing in cyber research and development, and fostering 
     information sharing about cyber threats and vulnerabilities 
     across government agencies and with the private sector. We 
     urge the Senate to now keep the ball moving forward in these 
     areas by bringing legislation to the floor as soon as 
     possible.
       In addition, we also feel that protection of our critical 
     infrastructure is essential in order to effectively protect 
     our nation, and economic security from the growing cyber 
     threat. Infrastructure that controls our electricity, water 
     and sewer, nuclear plants, communications backbone, energy 
     pipelines and financial networks must be required to meet 
     appropriate cyber security standards. Where market forces and 
     existing regulations have failed to drive appropriate 
     security, we believe that our government must do what it can 
     to ensure the protection of our critical infrastructure. 
     Performance standards in some cases will be necessary--these 
     standards should be technology neutral, and risk and outcome 
     based. We do not believe that this requires the imposition of 
     detailed security regimes in every instance, but some 
     standards must be minimally required or promoted through the 
     offer of positive incentives such as liability protection and 
     availability of clearances.
       Various drafts of legislation have attempted to address 
     this important area--the Lieberman/Collins bill having 
     received the most traction until recently. We will not 
     advocate one approach over another--however, we do feel 
     strongly that critical infrastructure protection needs to be 
     addressed in any cyber security legislation. The risk is 
     simply too great considering the reality of our 
     interconnected and interdependent world, and the impact that 
     can result from the failure of even one part of the network 
     across a wide range of physical, economic and social systems.
       Finally, we have commented previously about the important 
     role that the National Security Agency (NSA) can and does 
     play in the protection of our country against cyber threats. 
     A piece of malware sent from Asia to the United States could 
     take as little as 30 milliseconds to traverse such distance. 
     Preventing and defending against such attacks requires the 
     ability to respond to them in real-time. NSA is the only 
     agency dedicated to breaking the codes and understanding the 
     capabilities and intentions of potential enemies, even before 
     they hit ``send.'' Any legislation passed by Congress should 
     allow the public and private sectors to harness the 
     capabilities of the NSA to protect our critical 
     infrastructure from malicious actors.
       We carry the burden of knowing that 9/11 might have been 
     averted with the intelligence that existed at the time. We do 
     not want to be in the same position again when `cyber 9/11' 
     hits--it is not a question of `whether' this will happen; it 
     is a question of `when.'
       Therefore we urge you to bring cyber security legislation 
     to the floor as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
     Hon. Michael Chertoff,
     Hon. J. Mike McConnell,
     Hon. Paul Wolfowitz,
     Gen. Michael Hayden,
     Gen. James Cartwright (RET),
     Hon. William Lynn III.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The majority leader came to the floor yesterday, as I 
have said, echoing these sentiments in his floor speech, when he said:

       When virtually every intelligence expert says we need to 
     secure the systems that make the lights come on, inaction is 
     not an option.

  I could not agree more with Senator Reid.
  The fact is, the House of Representatives, the so-called other body 
of Congress, has passed a cybersecurity bill--a package that I think 
takes some significant initial good steps. I thank the House for that. 
But I believe the bipartisan Senate Cybersecurity Act of 2012, S. 2105, 
which is sponsored by Senators Collins, Feinstein, Rockefeller, and me, 
takes the additional necessary steps to secure our cyber systems and, 
therefore, is preferable.
  It is preferable, in large part, because it addresses the need to 
secure our Nation's critical cyber infrastructure; that is, the 
computers that control the systems that, if commandeered, attacked or 
intruded upon, could allow an attacker to open and close key valves and 
switches in pipelines for gas and oil and refineries and factories and 
water and sewer systems and electric plants and banks and along 
transportation nodes without detection by their operators.
  We need to pass this bill or something very much like it so we can go 
to conference with the House and iron out whatever differences we have 
this year so we can get legislation to the President's desk. He has 
endorsed, I am grateful to say, S. 2105--certainly endorsed the 
principles that are in it.
  We have to do that so we raise our defenses before we are victims of 
a cyber 9/11. The time remaining to do so in this session is obviously 
growing shorter. We know the lameduck session will be almost 
exclusively taken up with difficult questions about the budget, debt, 
sequester, the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts and much more. 
So we have to act.
  I am encouraged by Senator Reid's statement yesterday and my own 
belief after conversations with him that the leader is intent on 
bringing this legislation to the floor in July. The truth is, if we do 
not take it up in July and see whether we have the votes--and I am 
confident we will when it comes to the floor--we are not going to be 
able to pass this legislation that is timely and allows us to go to 
conference, reach an agreement, and send the bill to the President of 
the United States for his signature.
  When talking about cybersecurity, the biggest threats we all know 
come from other nations, nation states, also nonstate actors such as 
terrorists and organized crime syndicates. But this young man I 
referred to at the beginning of my statement and his ability to quite 
easily penetrate the cyber control system of a local water company in 
the United States shows us that an attack can come from just about 
anyone and from just about anywhere.
  According to the Washington Post story, ``This individual who goes by 
the name prOf is a bright unemployed 22 year old who favors hoodie 
sweatshirts and lives in his parent's home somewhere overseas.''
  But this good guy, white-hat hacker, knows the risks our Nation is 
facing. He told the Post:

       Eventually, somebody will get access to a major system and 
     people will be hurt. It is just a matter of time.

  That is the truth. Six of our Nation's premier equity security 
experts are in agreement with this 22-year-old hacker as they said in 
their letter: It is just a matter of time. We have to act before that 
time comes. To my colleagues who have concerns about the Cyber Security 
Act of 2011, the Collins-Feinstein-Rockefeller-Lieberman legislation, I 
say: Come on and work with us. We can and must resolve our differences. 
In fact, around some of the major areas of discussion, controversy, the 
section of our bill that has performance requirements for private 
sector entities that own the most critical infrastructure which, if 
attacked, could cause mass deaths, casualties, catastrophic economic 
loss, and a denigration of our national security, those are--and then 
the other section being the information-sharing section, where some 
people have civil liberties or privacy concerns, there is a good-faith 
effort going on to resolve those differences because, I think 
increasingly, Members of the Senate on both sides, just reacting to the 
facts, are worried this is a real and present danger to our security.
  Perhaps the most real and present immediate danger of a massive 
attack on our homeland that exists today is by cyber attack. I do not 
think any of us wants to look back and say: Why did we not act before 
we were attacked? Therefore, I am encouraged by these deliberations. 
But I say to anybody else who has concerns about our bill, Members of 
the Senate, please be in touch with Senators Collins, Feinstein, 
Rockefeller or myself.

[[Page S4137]]

  If we cannot resolve our differences, then draft amendments and let's 
debate them on the floor and have up-or-down votes and let the Senate 
work its will. As Senator Reid said in his remarks yesterday:

       Everybody knows this Congress cannot pass laws that do not 
     have broad bipartisan support. So we are going to need to 
     work together on a bill that addresses the concerns of 
     lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

  That time is coming soon, I am confident to say, based on my 
conversations with the majority leader. That time is coming soon on the 
floor of the Senate, but we have to start now to make sure we are ready 
when the bill comes to the Senate floor. I guarantee that one day in 
the near future, if we do not pass comprehensive cybersecurity 
legislation, and there is a serious and significant cyberspace attack 
on us, we will rush to pass it and that will be too late and we will 
not do it in a thoughtful way.
  Time grows short while the threat keeps swelling. What if the next 
22-year-old who decides to take over a water plant or an oil or gas 
pipeline or an electric powerplant decides to make a more convincing 
demonstration than just posting screen pictures online? If a 22-year-
old can do this, think what an enemy nation with a significant amount 
of money and personnel and training behind it could do to us if we are 
not adequately defended?
  I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because this is 
not a partisan issue at all, this is a national security-homeland 
security issue: Let's get to work. Let's get ready for the floor debate 
on cybersecurity that I am confident is coming soon. Then let's pass 
this urgently needed legislation for the sake of both our national and 
economic security.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Strengthening Agricultural Production

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am going to take a few minutes to 
outline the amendments I plan to offer on the farm bill. In beginning, 
I particularly want to commend the chair of the committee, Senator 
Stabenow, and Senator Roberts. I think we all understand that if you 
want to tackle a big issue, an important issue, you have to find a way 
to come to something resembling common ground.
  This bill is especially important. This is a jobs bill at a time when 
our country needs good-paying jobs. It is an extraordinarily important 
health bill, particularly one with great implications for how America 
tackles the issue of obesity. It is an environmental bill because it 
has great implications for conservation. And, of course, it has 
extraordinary impact on rural communities--rural communities that are 
hurting right now.
  The amendments I am going to be offering on the farm bill address 
those major concerns, and those concerns are particularly important to 
my State. My State does a lot of things well, but what we do best is we 
grow things. We grow things, add value to them, and ship them 
somewhere. We grow lots and lots of things--hundreds of crops, 
wonderful fruit and vegetables. We want to have a chance to grow this 
part of our economy. It is a $5 billion economy for the State of 
Oregon, and one we want to strengthen in the days ahead.
  The first amendment I will be offering on the farm bill addresses the 
Farm to School Program. Schools all across the country purchase 
produce--pears, cherries, tomatoes, and lettuce--from Department of 
Agriculture warehouses. In some cases, the warehouses may be hundreds 
and hundreds of miles away. There are schools, however, that wish to 
source their fruits and vegetables locally. There are producers who 
wish to sell their goods to local schools.
  You don't have to be a fancy economist, but that sounds like a market 
to me. The Congress ought to enable this market, not make it more 
difficult for this market to function. I spent a lot of time in rural 
Oregon over the last few months. As I have previously indicated, Harry 
& David, a producer in my home State--and a lot of Senators have gotten 
their wonderful products over the years as holiday gifts--wants to sell 
their wonderful pears to the school down the street. In attempting to 
do so, Harry & David has been met with a real maze, a welter of odd 
Federal rules, that has prevented them from doing so.
  It should not be bureaucratic water torture for a local producer to 
sell to a nearby school. It is getting at that kind of bureaucracy and 
redtape that my Farm to School amendment seeks to address. As of now, 
Federal agriculture policy seems to be dishing out a diet of paperwork, 
process, and limited options, when we ought to be promoting innovation 
and getting away from this sort of one-size-fits-all approach.
  My Farm to School amendment would allow for at least five Farm to 
School projects across the country, where States like mine that are 
innovative, have established and proven Farm to School programs in 
place, would be able to source healthy, quality produce rather than buy 
it from one of these faraway Federal warehouses.
  Under this kind of approach, with this crucial program, the schools 
are going to win, our farmers are going to win, and our kids will be 
able to enjoy delicious local produce every day with this particular 
amendment.
  The second amendment I plan to offer also encourages healthier 
eating. This one deals with the SNAP program--the program formerly 
known as Food Stamps. As the occupant of the chair knows, this program 
represents a substantial amount of the funding for the farm bill--over 
$70 billion. There are 700,000 SNAP recipients in my home State of 
Oregon. For too many Oregonians, this program is the only thing that 
stands between them and hunger.
  I have said it on this floor before, and I want to say it again: I am 
not in favor of cutting these benefits; quite the contrary. I think 
Senator Gillibrand has an excellent amendment to ensure that that 
doesn't take place. I hope she will win support in the Senate for it. 
We should not have, in a country as rich and strong as ours, this many 
Americans going to bed at night hungry and trying to dig themselves out 
of the great recession at the same time. So I am not in favor of 
cutting SNAP benefits, but I am in favor of incentivizing this program 
to make it possible for those of modest incomes to get healthier, more 
nutritious foods, especially in light of the growing obesity epidemic 
our country faces.
  What troubles me is that, in one sense, the Food Stamp Program, the 
SNAP program, is something of a conveyor belt for calories. It 
essentially says all of the various food products are equal. At a time 
when we see such extraordinary rates of obesity, particularly for low-
income children and low-income women, I only hope we can look at ways 
to create incentives for healthier eating.
  I am not in favor of setting up some kind of Federal policy that 
starts dictating from Washington, DC, what folks who are using the SNAP 
program can eat. I am not interested in some kind of national nanny 
program, or something that says you can't eat this or that. What I am 
proposing is that here in the Senate, we look at ways, particularly 
when you are talking about $70 billion of Federal nutrition spending, 
to at least promote healthier eating wherever possible, and the 
increased consumption of healthy fruits and vegetables.
  Studies by the Centers for Disease Control show that low-income women 
and children--those most likely to receive SNAP benefits--are more 
likely to be obese than higher income women and children. What I am 
proposing with this amendment is giving the States some flexibility to 
try out ways to make SNAP benefits a launch pad for better nutrition, 
rather than, as I characterized it earlier, a conveyor belt for 
calories.
  What I wish--and I know the Chair hails from a State with a 
substantial amount of agriculture--is to see farmers, retailers, health 
specialists, and

[[Page S4138]]

those who rely on the SNAP program, to get together and find a 
consensus--some common ground--on a way to wring more nutritional value 
out of those SNAP benefits.
  In Oregon, we have tried this idea out. Those in the retail 
community, farmers and anti-hunger groups got together, and this group 
thinks they can do more to improve nutritional outcomes under this very 
large program.
  The amendment makes clear that you could not get a waiver to reduce 
eligibility, or reduce the amount of benefits that someone on the SNAP 
program receives. But you could, for example, try various approaches to 
promote nutritional eating. A State could encourage SNAP recipients to 
purchase more fruits and vegetables by partnering with grocery stores 
or other food sellers to provide coupons to enable SNAP recipients to 
purchase extra or discounted fruits and vegetables. There are now 
programs that allow SNAP benefits to be exchanged at farmers markets 
for coupons that produce $2 worth of produce for $1 of SNAP benefits. 
The cost of the extra produce is paid for using non-federal funds. A 
State waiver could enable this type of program, for example, to be 
expanded beyond farmers markets.
  There is a host of innovative proposals, in my view, that could 
improve public health and increase the consumption of healthy food. I 
hope as we go forward toward the conclusion of this legislation in the 
Senate, we can look at ways to accept the proposition that not all of 
the wisdom resides in Washington, DC, particularly when we are seeing 
these skyrocketing rates of obesity, tragically with special 
implications for low-income women and children. I think there are 
better ways to proceed. This amendment empowers States to have that 
opportunity.
  The third amendment I am going to offer, I have not spoken about on 
the floor to date, and I wish to take just a minute to describe what 
this amendment deals with. It is an amendment I plan to offer that 
addresses the issue of industrial hemp farming. It is cosponsored by 
Senator Rand Paul and is identical to legislation in the House, which 
has 33 bipartisan cosponsors.
  This is, in my view, a textbook example of a regulation that flunks 
the commonsense test. There is government regulation on the books that 
prevents America's farmers from growing industrial hemp. What is worse, 
this regulation is hurting job creation in rural America and increasing 
our trade deficit. When my colleagues get more information about this 
outlandish, outrageous restriction on free enterprise, I think most of 
them are going to agree the restriction on industrial hemp is the 
poster child for dumb regulations. The only thing standing in the way 
of taking advantage of this profitable crop is a lingering 
misunderstanding about its use. The amendment I have filed on this 
issue will end a ridiculous regulation once and for all.
  Right now, the United States is importing over ten-million of dollars 
of hemp products to use in paper products, construction materials, 
textiles, and a variety of other goods. We are importing a crop that 
U.S. farmers could be profitably growing right here at home if not for 
government rules prohibiting it.
  Our neighbors to the north can see the potential for this product. In 
2010, the Canadian Government injected over $700,000 into their 
blossoming hemp industry to increase the size of their hemp crop and 
fortify the inroads they're making in U.S. markets, at the expense of 
our farmers. It was a very good bet. U.S. imports of hemp products have 
consistently grown over the past decade, increasing by 300 percent in 
10 years. From 2009 to 2010, they grew 35 percent. The number of acres 
in Canada devoted to growing industrial hemp nearly doubled from 2011 
to 2012.
  I know there are going to be Members of Congress, and others who are 
listening to this, who are going to say all this talk about hemp is 
basically talk about marijuana. The fact is, while they come from the 
same species of plant, there are major differences between them. They 
have different harvest times, they're different heights, and the 
cultivation techniques are markedly different. And when we recognize 
those differences, we'll be able to focus on the benefits from 
producing domestically the hemp we already use.
  Under this amendment, the production of hemp would still be 
regulated, but it would be done by the States through permitting 
programs, not the Federal Government. Nine States have already put 
legislation in place to provide for a permitting system that enforces 
the prohibition on marijuana and ensures that industrial hemp maintains 
a very low THC level--under 0.3 percent. The lowest-grade marijuana 
typically has 5 percent THC content. The bottom line is no one is going 
to get high on industrial hemp.
  Hemp has been a profitable commodity in a number of countries. In 
addition to Canada, Australia also permits hemp production, and the 
growth in that sector helped their agricultural base survive when the 
tobacco industry dried up. Over 30 countries in Europe, Asia and North 
and South America currently permit farmers to grow hemp, and China is 
the world's largest producer. In fact, our country is the only 
industrialized nation that prohibits farmers from growing hemp.
  Oregon is home to some of the major manufacturers of hemp products, 
including Living Harvest, one of the largest hemp food producers in our 
country. Business has been so brisk there that the Portland Business 
Journal recently rated them as one of the fastest growing local 
companies.
  There are similar success stories in other States. One company in 
North Carolina has been incorporating hemp into building materials, 
reportedly making them both stronger and more environmentally friendly. 
Another company in California produces hemp-based fiberboard.
  No country is better than ours at developing, perfecting, and 
expanding markets for our products. As the market grows, it ought to be 
domestically produced hemp that supplies that growth.
  I would like to close on this topic with a couple statements by one 
of the leading newspapers in my State, The Bulletin. I think it would 
be fair to say The Bulletin would not cite itself as one of the first 
places one ought to look for left-wing thinking, and here is what they 
had to say with respect to my amendment, which they encouraged support 
for:

     . . . producers of hemp products in the United States are 
     forced to import it. That denies American farmers the 
     opportunity to compete in the market. It's like surrendering 
     the competitive edge to China and Canada, where it can be 
     grown legally.

  The editorial then goes on to say:

       Legalizing industrial hemp does not have to be a slippery 
     slope towards legalizing marijuana. It can be a step toward 
     removing regulatory burdens limiting Oregon farmers from 
     competing in the world market.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
editorial from The Bulletin.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Bulletin Staff, June 9, 2012]

                  U.S. Should Legalize Industrial Hemp

                              (Editorial)

       U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has introduced a change to the 
     farm bill to remove the federal prohibition on growing 
     industrial hemp. Wyden's change would put an end to an 
     unnecessary ban.
       The Oregon Legislature authorized the growing of industrial 
     hemp in 2009, but federal law still blocks hemp as an illegal 
     crop.
       Why? Federal policy does not distinguish between the 
     varieties of cannabis. Some are good for oilseed and fiber. 
     Some are better for smoking to get high.
       Yes, both do contain the hallucinogenic compound delta 9 
     tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Industrial hemp is low in it 
     Marijuana is high in it.
       That doesn't mean the country should ban growing all of it.
       Industrial hemp is versatile and can grow like crazy. It 
     can be used for paper, clothes, rope. The seed oil can be 
     used for a variety of things: food, paint, pharmaceuticals 
     and more.
       It's already used in Oregon and across the country. But 
     producers of hemp products in the United States are forced to 
     import it. That denies American farmers the opportunity to 
     compete in the market. It's like surrendering the competitive 
     edge to China and Canada, where it can be grown legally.
       There are concerns about what legalizing hemp would mean. 
     Would it be another headache for law enforcement?
       One way to solve that, if it's a problem, is to require 
     industrial hemp fields to be licensed and require random 
     testing to ensure the crop is low in THC. Oregon's law said 
     the state could seize crops that had a THC level higher than 
     0.3 percent.
       Legalizing industrial hemp does not have to be a slippery 
     slope toward legalizing marijuana. It can be a start toward 
     removing regulatory burdens limiting Oregon farmers from 
     competing in the world market.


[[Page S4139]]


  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, if this farm bill is about empowering 
farmers and increasing rural jobs, let's give them the tools they need 
to get the job done. Let's boost revenue for farmers and reduce the 
overhead costs for the businesses around the country that use this 
product. And let's put more people to work growing and processing an 
environmentally friendly crop with a ready market in the United States.
  For all the reasons I have described, I will be urging my colleagues 
to support this amendment so the law can be changed and farmers are not 
prevented from growing a profitable crop in the future.
  Even though my amendment is about growing a crop and should be 
clearly relevant to the farm bill, it may be blocked from getting a 
vote because of the Senate rules on what amendments are allowed to be 
offered once cloture is invoked on the bill. If I get the opportunity, 
I am going to bring this amendment up through the regular order. But if 
cloture is invoked and my amendment is not allowed, I want colleagues 
to know I will be back at this again until there are smarter 
regulations in place for industrial hemp.
  In closing, let me say I don't think we can overstate the importance 
of the best possible farm bill. Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts 
have, in my view, done yeomen's work in trying to build a bipartisan 
approach. The question now is can we use the amendment process to 
improve on the kind of bipartisan effort they brought to the floor.
  Each of the areas I have described this afternoon--improving the Farm 
to School program, wringing more value and better nutritional outcomes 
from the SNAP program, and helping a promising hemp industry--give us a 
chance to attain the objectives of what I have described as the best 
possible farm bill, and we can do this all without spending one single 
dime of additional taxpayer money--not a dime of additional taxpayer 
money. It is my hope we can take the good work that has already been 
done by Senators Stabenow and Roberts and build on that. I hope the 
Senate will support the three amendments I have described this 
afternoon.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first, let me thank all of our 
colleagues who are working with us as we move forward in putting 
together a package of amendments to be voted on here in the Senate. I 
want to thank everyone--of course my ranking member, Senator Roberts, 
but also people on both sides who are working together in good faith as 
we move through this process.
  This morning, we did have two votes, and in the next little while we 
will have two more. And I do want to speak to one of those but also to 
just indicate again to all of our colleagues how important it is to 
farmers and ranchers, families, and rural communities across America 
that we come together and pass this farm bill.
  Sixteen million people have jobs related to agriculture. I am not 
sure there is any one single piece of legislation we have had in front 
of us that actually impacted 16 million people like this one. Of 
course, we are very proud of the way we have come together in a 
bipartisan way to propose something that actually cuts the deficit by 
over $23 billion and creates real reforms that taxpayers and farmers 
have asked for, while strengthening our risk-management tools for 
agriculture, conservation, other jobs efforts, certainly rural 
development, alternative energy, and certainly our support for families 
with their own personal disaster when it comes to putting food on the 
table during an economic downturn for them.
  I want to specifically take a moment, though, to speak and urge my 
colleagues to vote yes on a motion to table Coburn amendment No. 2353, 
which would repeal two of the most successful conservation programs in 
the history of our country, the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, which we all call EQIP, and the Conservation Stewardship 
Program.
  EQIP is on the front lines of production agriculture, helping farmers 
comply with regulatory pressures, and it has been very effective. It is 
the cornerstone of our country's commitment to voluntary, incentive-
based conservation--voluntary--working with farmers, working with 
ranchers in a voluntary way, to partner with them to be able to provide 
ways to tackle environmental issues we all care about.
  I would underscore the fact that what we call the farm bill is 
actually the largest investment we as a country make in conservation of 
land, air, and water on working lands--lands that are owned by the 
private sector, partnering, because we all have a stake in runoff and 
clean water issues and erosion issues and all of the other things that 
relate to protecting our wildlife and our wetlands for not only 
habitats but also for our hunters and fishermen and all of the other 
issues around which we celebrate what we have been able to do around 
conservation in this country.
  EQIP really is a cornerstone of our commitment to a voluntary 
incentive-based conservation program. It provides a cost share to 
farmers to implement practices that have been absolutely proven to work 
to benefit our country's soil, air, and water resources.
  This last year the Environmental Quality Incentive Program entered 
into 38,000 contracts with farmers and ranchers all across America, 
covering 13 million acres of land. EQIP has a number of incredible 
stories across the country--in Louisiana, helping farmers recover from 
Hurricane Katrina; in Oklahoma, helping producers implement best 
management practices to reduce sediment in the Mission Creek, improving 
water quality, helping restore fish populations. In Michigan, they have 
helped farmers struggling with bovine TB protect their herds and 
livelihoods.
  So this is one of two critical conservation programs that would be 
repealed by this amendment. The other one is the Conservation 
Stewardship Program. This encourages higher levels of conservation 
across agricultural operations as well as the adoption of new and 
emerging conservation practices. CSP encourages producers to address 
resource concerns by undertaking additional conservation activities and 
improving and maintaining their current activities. And they focus on 
seven resource concerns as well as energy--soil quality, soil erosion, 
water quality, water quantity, air quality, plant resources, and animal 
resources--all things important not only for our farmers and ranchers 
but to all of us--every community, every State, all of us in the 
country.
  This program is extremely popular. It has been very successful. This 
year producers enrolled 12 million acres in the program, and this 
brings the total to 49 million acres across the country that now have 
conservation practices as a result of the CSP. It provides conservation 
bankers with more acres than any other conservation program in the 
country. I strongly urge we table this amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' 
vote in tabling the amendment.

  I would like to talk a little bit more about what we have done in a 
positive way in the conservation title. One of the areas of this bill I 
am most proud of is the work that has been done with conservation and 
environmental groups all across the country--in fact, we have 643 
conservation and environmental groups that have said this is the right 
approach.
  In tough economic times, when we know we do not have additional 
dollars, we took a look at every single page, every single program. 
There are 23 different programs in conservation. Every time somebody 
had a good idea, a program got added rather than looking at 
duplication, redundancy, how we can streamline and make it better for 
farmers, communities, better for ranchers, make it simpler and more 
understandable. So we decided to go back and do what every taxpayer and 
every citizen has asked us to do; that is, streamline, make more 
accountability, cut the paperwork, make things work better.
  We do support flexibility. We support locally led ground-up voluntary 
efforts.

[[Page S4140]]

We increase transparency and accountability, we streamline, consolidate 
programs, help farmers comply with regulatory pressures, and we 
basically have come together. We have taken 23 different programs down 
to 13 and put them in three different areas and created a lot of 
flexibility. We want to stretch the dollars even further in four areas: 
working lands, easements, conservation reserve programs, and regional 
partnerships, which are so important to so many of us.
  All across the country family farms are passed down to children, 
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Our rapidly growing population 
demands our farmers and ranchers double their production over the next 
few decades and use fewer acres to do it, so innovation in farming is 
absolutely critical. But no amount of technology can make up for 
degraded soil or polluted water.
  The farm bill's conservation programs help our producers meet their 
challenges and the country's challenges, ensuring that we have a safe, 
abundant food supply, clean water, and thriving wildlife populations 
for many generations to come.
  It is wonderful to see the partnerships that are going on all across 
Michigan, all across the country. Many farmers take advantage of these 
voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs. In our Great Lakes 
region alone--I would say not only Michigan but our Presiding Officer 
from Minnesota certainly cares as well. We championed together so many 
times on the Great Lakes initiative. But in the Great Lakes region 
alone farmers use one form of conservation on 95 percent of the acres. 
On 95 percent of the acres we have conservation going on.
  As we look at streamlining from 23 to 13 programs, making them more 
flexible and so on, we actually have been able to achieve savings of $6 
billion while maintaining conservation functions, and I would argue 
strengthening their effectiveness as well while cutting the dollars. 
Nationally, there are 357 million acres of cropland, 406 million acres 
of forest land, 119 million acres of pasture land, and 409 million 
acres of rangeland under private ownership in the United States. That 
is a lot of land, and all of that is impacted by what we do in the 
conservation title of the farm bill.
  We also know the challenges my farmers face in Michigan are different 
than those in Kansas or Oklahoma or Minnesota or Montana. We have built 
in enough flexibility in this new title, modernizing it, reforming it, 
creating flexibility to be able to meet very different needs across the 
country. I will briefly go through each area. We are focusing, as I 
said, on four different areas.
  Working lands, where we have two programs that are proposed to be 
eliminated right now, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
which I spoke about, and CSP is in the working lands title. We also 
include the conservation innovation grants, which are geared to 
projects that offer new approaches to providing producers environmental 
and production benefits. Again, we look for ways to support efforts 
that have not been receiving ongoing funding through the past bill to 
be able to continue and have greater flexibility in a number of 
different programs.
  One is critical, I believe, for America's sportsmen and sportswomen; 
that is, access to good recreational land. I know that is very 
important to my State of Michigan, very important to my family.
  The Voluntary Public Access and Wildlife Incentives Program 
encourages farmers to open their land for recreational uses--hunting, 
fishing, bird-watching. Right now, 26 States are taking advantage of 
the program, and we continue that in the bill, which is very important.
  Our second area is on easements. There are three existing 
conservation easement programs. We are putting them into one to protect 
our lands from development and keep them devoted to agricultural use as 
well as to keep the land for grazing. Wetland easements restore, 
protect, and enhance wetlands which are important to water quality, 
quantity, and wildlife habitat in many areas also.
  We are focusing on long-term land protection. Over the last 20 years 
the Wetlands Reserve Program helped more than 11,000 private landowners 
voluntarily restore, protect, and enhance wetlands and wildlife 
habitat. So we are very pleased all of this is in the bill as well.
  The Conservation Reserve Program has been very successful. From 2006 
to 2010 the USDA estimates the Conservation Reserve Program was 
responsible for reducing 1.09 billion tons of sediment, 3.1 billion 
metric tons of nitrogen, and 613 million pounds of phosphorus from 
going into our waters--that is an accomplishment--from going into our 
Great Lakes, into our oceans, into our rivers, into our streams. These 
are the main contributors to many of the water quality issues we face 
as a country.
  During the same time period, USDA estimates the Conservation Reserve 
Program contributed 284 million metric tons of greenhouse gas 
reduction. It is reducing CO2. I would say it is equivalent 
to taking 55 million cars off the road for a year. Coming from the car 
State, I appreciate CRP doing that. We want to be able to continue to 
drive our automobiles, and we are proud of what we are doing around 
automobiles, but can you imagine that this program alone has taken 
enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to equate to 55 million 
cars being taken off the roads?
  As of 2011, CRP was enrolling just under the acreage cap of 32 
million. Over the next couple of years, over 15 million acres are set 
to expire. We recognize not all of those will be reenrolled, but we 
want to make sure there is adequate room to reenroll the most sensitive 
acres.

  As an example of the effectiveness of CRP, last year parts of 
Oklahoma--I have a special affinity for Oklahoma. My mother was born in 
Oklahoma. My grandparents' family has lived there all their lives. I am 
very familiar with that State. Parts of Oklahoma experienced drought 
worse than the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. But we did not see dust 
storms like the 1930s because the voluntary conservation efforts--of 
the CRP in particular--worked to reduce soil erosion and keep the soil 
where it was supposed to be, which is on the ground.
  There are huge successes we have seen because our country has made an 
investment in protecting our precious land and water and air. We also 
have established a new program called the Regional Conservation 
Partnerships Program which consolidates four very effective regional 
partnerships into one. I am very pleased we have been able to do this. 
There is great significance for Members in all parts of the country. We 
consolidate the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative, the 
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
Initiative, and the Great Lakes Water Erosion Sediment Program. This 
exemplifies many of the principles of this title.
  We focus on conservation efforts that are locally led, that are 
voluntary, and we create more flexibility and transparency for 
reporting as well as making sure we have adequate resources. When we 
were talking to producers and a variety of partner organizations, 
nonprofits--again, hunters, fishermen, other organizations--they were 
very excited about this new regional partnership title as a section. We 
appreciate all of the input and the support we have received to be able 
to make this effective.
  Let me just say in conclusion that we have a conservation title that 
is supported in terms of its approach by almost 650 different 
conservation and environmental groups all across America in every 1 of 
the 50 States. They have sent a strong message. They worked with us. 
They know times are tight. They knew we had to create savings, we had 
to reduce dollars, but we had to make sure we had enough flexibility to 
do the job people across our country want to see done in protecting our 
lands, our water, and our air.
  This has been achieved with a tremendous amount of hard work on the 
part of many people. I am grateful for the work of our committee and 
many others. I appreciate our subcommittee chairman Michael Bennet, who 
has been deeply involved in this as well, and the Presiding Officer 
from Minnesota as well. We have many people who feel very strongly. Our 
chairman of the Finance Committee who was on the Senate floor earlier 
speaking about this is another true champion around conservation. There 
were so many people in our committee.

[[Page S4141]]

  I could go on and on about this, and on both sides of the aisle I 
might add, but if I start naming people I will probably get in trouble 
for missing someone. But we have strong people, strong advocates on 
both sides of the aisle.
  I thank everybody for their wonderful work on this conservation 
title. I think it is an example of the great work that has been done in 
putting the bill together. Again, I urge colleagues to vote yes to 
table the Coburn amendment and the additional amendment I will talk 
about at another point that will be coming before us, and continue to 
work with us as we bring together the path forward to completing this 
very important bill that affects 16 million American jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Sexual Assault in the Military

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise to speak about 
something very serious, which is the issue of sexual assault in the 
military, and in support of the Shaheen amendment which I cosponsored 
in the Senate Armed Services Committee markup. Today, I wrote a letter 
to the House majority leadership expressing my concern for this issue 
and asking that it be addressed immediately.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee recently considered and passed 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, and it 
awaits full consideration of the Senate.
  As we all know, our troops need the tools and resources to complete 
their mission. It is imperative that it gets brought up right away.
  As a member of the committee, I joined with members of both sides of 
the aisle in supporting this amendment which would ensure that women 
who serve in our Armed Forces and their families are provided access to 
abortion services in cases of rape or incest.
  Sadly, sexual assault of women servicemembers has been recently 
exposed as far more prevalent than anyone previously thought. As a 
matter of fact, the Pentagon believes such crimes are vastly 
underreported. There is evidence that there are as many as 19,000 
assaults that are committed every year. That is as many as 50 each day.
  Furthermore, women are serving in harm's way--we know that--and they 
are often in dangerous locations without access to safe, nonmilitary 
health services. Given their courageous service, they deserve our care 
and protection, put quite simply.

  The language of the amendment is consistent with the longstanding 
Hyde amendment, which prevents Federal funding for abortions, except 
for the victims of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is at 
stake.
  It is a simple issue: Those who are serving in harm's way who are 
victims of such horrific crimes should be afforded the same rights as 
citizens they protect and who rely on Federal funding for their health 
care.
  Our amendment passed 16 to 10 on a bipartisan basis, as I referenced 
earlier, in committee, and I will continue to work with my colleagues 
to ensure it remains included in the version that passes the full 
Senate.
  As I said, unfortunately, the House Armed Services Committee did not 
include a similar provision in their version of the bill, and I am not 
quite sure why.
  I urge the House Members to think about the real-world implications 
of their actions and not block this legislation. I hope we can work 
together, in a truly bipartisan and bicameral basis, to ensure that our 
amendment language becomes law so the President may sign it as such.
  Extending these provisions to our military servicewomen is the right 
thing to do.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               DREAM Act

  Mr. DURBIN. On June 15, 1982, 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court 
handed down a landmark decision, Plyler v. Doe. In 1975, the State of 
Texas had passed a law that allowed public schools to refuse admission 
to children who were undocumented. The law also withheld State funds 
from local school districts if they were to be used for education of 
undocumented kids.
  In the Plyler case, the Court struck down the Texas law and held that 
it is unconstitutional to deny public education to children on the 
basis of their immigration status. Justice William Brennan, who 
authored the opinion, wrote: ``By denying these children a basic 
education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our 
civic institutions and foreclose any realistic possibility that they 
will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our 
nation.''
  The year was 1982. In the 30 years since Plyler v. Doe was decided, 
millions of immigrant children have received an education and become 
contributing members to America and society. They are today's doctors, 
soldiers, teachers, engineers, and they make us a better nation.
  But since it was decided, Plyler has been under attack from anti-
immigration forces. On the very day the decision was announced, there 
was a lawyer at the Justice Department who wrote a memo criticizing his 
superiors for not arguing support of this Texas law that was stricken 
by the Court.
  Keep in mind at the time Plyler was decided, the Justice Department 
was not under the control of a Democratic President; Ronald Reagan was 
President. Who was the Justice Department lawyer criticizing the Reagan 
administration for not being tough enough on immigrant children? His 
name was John Roberts.
  Twenty-three years later, in 2005, he was nominated to be Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court. During his confirmation hearing, Chief 
Justice Roberts said he would not vote to overturn cases that are 
``well-settled law.'' For example, he said Brown v. Board of Education, 
the Supreme Court decision that ordered desegregation of schools, was 
also well-settled law.
  Plyler v. Doe is often called the Brown v. Board of Education of the 
immigrants in America. But when I asked John Roberts whether he 
considered Plyler to be well-settled law, he refused to answer my 
question. Over the years, there have been attempts to pass Federal 
legislation overturning this Supreme Court decision.
  In 1996, Congress was considering a bill to restrict illegal 
immigrants. Representative Elton Gallegly, a Republican from 
California, offered an amendment to overturn Plyler v. Doe and permit 
States to bar undocumented children from public schools. At the time, I 
was in the House. I voted against the Gallegly amendment and so did 
most of the Democrats.
  But most Republicans voted for it and it passed. President Clinton 
threatened a veto if the Gallegly amendment was included in the final 
version of the immigration bill. The amendment was also opposed by a 
bipartisan group of Senators, including the late great Senator Ted 
Kennedy and our colleague, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.
  As a result of this opposition, the Gallegly amendment was dropped 
from the final version of the bill. The latest threat to Plyler v. Doe 
is a spate of State laws targeting legal and illegal immigrants. On 
June 9, 2011, 1 year ago this week, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed 
into law H.B. 56, the strictest immigration law in the country.
  Under Alabama law H.B. 56, it is a crime for a legal immigrant to 
fail to carry documents proving his or her legal status at all times. 
Police officers in Alabama are required to check the immigration status 
of any individual if they have ``reasonable suspicion that he or she is 
undocumented.''

[[Page S4142]]

  I am especially concerned about the provisions of the Alabama law 
that involve schools in enforcing immigration laws. For example, in 
Alabama, schools must check the immigration status of every student and 
report that information to the State. Schools are authorized to report 
students and parents they believe to be undocumented to the Federal 
Government.
  Last year, the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Department of 
Education sent a letter to every school district in the country warning 
that enrollment practices that discourage students from attending 
school could violate Federal civil rights law. The letter reminded 
school districts of their obligation to provide access to undocumented 
students under the Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe.
  Supporters of the Alabama law argue it does not prohibit immigrant 
children from attending public schools. But involving schools in 
enforcing immigration laws will clearly discourage immigrant children 
from attending. Last month, Tom Perez, the head of the Justice 
Department's Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to the Alabama 
Superintendent of Education about their department's investigation of 
Alabama's H.B. 56.
  Mr. Perez said the Justice Department has concluded that ``in the 
immediate aftermath of [H.B. 56's] implementation, Hispanic student 
absence rates tripled, while absence rates for other groups of students 
remained virtually flat'' and ``the rate of total withdrawals of 
Hispanic children substantially increased'' to 13.4 percent of all 
Hispanic students in Alabama schools.
  Mr. Perez also said: ``Hispanic children reported increased anxiety, 
diminished concentration in school, deteriorating grades, and increased 
hostility, bullying, and intimidation.''
  The author of the education provision of the Alabama law has made it 
clear his real goal is to overturn Plyler v. Doe. If this challenge 
should make it to the Supreme Court, it could find a receptive audience 
in the Chief Justice, who criticized Plyler v. Doe when it was decided 
and refused to say it was well-settled law when he appeared before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  I think this is the wrong approach for America. Instead of 
challenging Plyler vs. Doe, we should be building on its legacy. Eleven 
years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act--11 years. The DREAM Act is a 
bill that would give a select group of immigrant students who grew up 
in America the chance to earn their way to legal status if they do one 
of two things: serve in America's military or at least complete 2 years 
of college in good standing.
  These young people were brought to the United States as children. I 
am sure the Presiding Officer knows many of them in his home State. 
They grew up in this country and, thanks to Plyler v. Doe, they got a 
chance to go to school here. They are the valedictorians and ROTC 
leaders in many schools.
  It wasn't their decision to come to this country. They were kids when 
the decision was made, and their parents made the decision. The 
fundamental premise of the DREAM Act is that we should not punish kids 
for any wrongdoing by their parents. That isn't the American way. As 
Senator Marco Rubio has said, just because the parents got it wrong, we 
should not hold it against the kids.
  As Justice Brennan said in Plyler v. Doe, ``legislation directing the 
onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport 
with fundamental conceptions of justice.''
  The DREAM Act isn't just the right thing to do, it is the right thing 
to do for America. It would help our economy by giving these talented 
immigrants a chance to become tomorrow's engineers, entrepreneurs, 
small business owners, teachers, and doctors.
  The DREAM Act would strengthen America's national security by giving 
thousands of highly qualified, well-educated young people a chance to 
serve in America's Armed Forces. It is one of the greatest levelers in 
America. When we decided to integrate the Armed Forces under President 
Harry Truman, we set the stage for the civil rights revolution in this 
country. When men and women in the military were recognized for their 
inherent worth and commitment to this Nation rather than the color of 
their skin, it set a standard that now guides our Nation.
  Almost every week I do my best to come to the floor to tell a story 
of one of these young people who would qualify for the DREAM Act. Today 
I will tell you about Al Okere. Al was born in Nigeria in 1990. In 
1991, Al's father was killed by the Nigerian police after he wrote 
newspaper columns criticizing the Nigerian Government. The killing of 
Al's father was documented in the State Department's annual human 
rights report.
  In 1995, Al's mother fled Nigeria and brought her 5-year-old boy Al 
to the United States. Al's mother, because of the murder or killing of 
her husband, applied for asylum, but her application was denied and she 
was deported in 2005, when Al was 15--after 10 years in the United 
States.
  Today Al is 21 years of age. He lived in the State of Washington. His 
mother's sister, who is a U.S. citizen, is Al's legal guardian and has 
raised him since Al's mother was deported.
  Al graduated from Rogers High School, near Tacoma, WA. He is 
currently attending Central Washington University, where he is an 
honors student with a 3.5 grade point average. He is an avid basketball 
and football player. He is an active volunteer in his community. For 
example, he recently headed up a fundraising drive for the Hope 
Children's Hospital.
  I ask a lot of these ``dreamers'' to send me letters about their view 
of the United States and their hope for the future. He wrote this:

       I have been in accelerated academic programs most of my 
     educational life and hope to be a medical doctor some day, to 
     contribute to the well-being of fellow humans. I hope to 
     continue to emulate and walk in the great academic shoes of 
     my late father, who earned a Ph.D degree from a university in 
     Paris, France. My family and community support has been 
     enormous and it gives me zeal to work hard in my studies, to 
     be able to lend a hand to others in need, to realize a bright 
     future.

  Unfortunately, Al has been placed in deportation proceedings. Under 
our immigration law, his aunt, who is a U.S. citizen and his legal 
guardian, can't sponsor him for citizenship.
  Al Okere grew up in America. He has never committed a crime. We have 
already invested in him. He has received his entire education, from 
kindergarten through college, in the United States. He didn't get any 
financial help in going to college from the Federal Government. He 
borrowed for that because he is undocumented. He had to find other 
sources and work his way through college. But he made it. He has a 
great potential to contribute to America. He doesn't remember a thing 
about Nigeria, and he doesn't speak their native language. Despite all 
that, the laws of America say that Al should be deported.
  Here is what Al said about that possibility:

       I don't remember anything about my mother's country of 
     Nigeria. I cannot even speak the language. Every experience I 
     have had in life that I can remember has been in the United 
     States of America. Everyone I know and care about are all 
     here, except for my mother, who was sadly removed and remains 
     in hiding in fear of her life.

  Fortunately, the Department of Homeland Security has decided to put 
Al's deportation on hold. I support this decision, but I know it is 
only temporary, it doesn't give Al permanent legal status of any kind, 
and there is still a risk of deportation in the future. The only way 
for Al to become a citizen is for the DREAM Act to become the law of 
the land.
  Would America be a better Nation if Al Okere were deported? Of course 
not. Al is not an isolated example. There are thousands of others like 
him, who are only asking for a chance, asking for justice.
  Plyler v. Doe gave Al Okere and other bright, accomplished, and 
ambitious young people like him the opportunity to obtain an education 
in America. The DREAM Act would give them a chance to fulfill their 
God-given potential and become our future doctors, engineers, teachers, 
and soldiers.
  A couple of weeks ago--a lot of these DREAM Act students keep in 
touch with us--one student contacted our office saying he had given up. 
He lived in America all his life and had been educated here. He made 
his way through college and was looking forward to being an engineer. 
He waited 11 years for passage of the DREAM Act, and it hasn't 
happened. He decided he had no choice but to move to Canada. So now his 
talents will go to Canada. I have

[[Page S4143]]

nothing against Canada; it is a great nation and neighbor. But why 
would we give up someone we have educated and trained to be a part of 
America?
  On the 30th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, I again ask my colleagues 
in both parties to support the DREAM Act. Let's give Al Okere and so 
many other young people like him a chance to contribute more fully to 
the only country they have called home. It is the right thing to do, 
and it will make America a stronger Nation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Childhood Obesity

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today because there is an 
epidemic hovering over America, and we ought not to stand by and let it 
continue.
  A staggering one-third of Americans are obese a condition that can 
endanger health and shorten lifespan. Among our children, the situation 
is becoming a plague and leaving too many young people unable to 
participate in physical activities, such as sports or games.
  I salute the First Lady, Michelle Obama, for bringing attention to 
this crisis by educating parents, teachers, and kids about the need to 
be more active and eat nutritious food, but it is going to take the 
involvement of this Congress. We need to protect our children, our 
economy, and our national security.
  Our Nation's childhood obesity rate is one of the highest in the 
world. Here we see it, childhood obesity rates displayed worldwide: 
Obesity epidemic as seen among American youth. And if we look at the 
other major countries in the world, going from the lowest, China is at 
5.2 percent, upwards to France at 14.1 percent, and then we get to 
America, and 31.7 percent of our children are obese or overweight. That 
is discouraging, very sad for the individual and for the country at 
large.

  People who are obese are at a higher risk for heart disease, stroke, 
diabetes, and even certain types of cancer. Obesity-related conditions 
kill more than 110,000 Americans every year. We do not want to see more 
children with diabetes. We don't want our children to be burdened with 
a lifetime of disease and disability.
  Public health advocates have been sounding the alarm for years, but 
this problem has only gotten worse and this Congress and the Federal 
Government have largely ignored the problem. Over the last few decades, 
the rate of children who are obese or overweight has doubled. In 1973, 
we were looking at 15.4 percent. That was the percentage of obese and 
overweight American children. But if we look ahead only 40 years, we 
see the rate has gone from 15.4 percent to 31.7 percent. That is almost 
one-third of our childhood population. This issue has even affected our 
military and the statistics are shocking; 25 percent of our young men 
and women who want to join the military are too overweight to serve.
  We need to take bold action. This farm bill is not just about making 
sure businesses stay profitable, it should be about keeping our 
citizens healthy too. We owe it to our kids and our country to learn 
what is causing this calamity.
  That is why I filed an amendment to focus in on a particular 
suspected contributor to the problem. The Federal Government can and 
should determine whether sugary drinks are causing obesity and causing 
the damage that goes with it. Americans are drinking more high-sugar 
drinks than ever before--children and adults drink twice the amount of 
sugary soda than they did just three decades ago. These drinks are 
cheap and available everywhere--in restaurants, convenience stores, 
movie theaters or vending machines.
  We have seen children and teenagers holding giant cups of soda or 
other sugary drinks. Some of these sizes are so big they look like a 
barrel. When a child drinks 32 ounces, takes a 32-ounce cup of soda, it 
is the equivalent of ingesting 41 sugar cubes. Can you imagine anyone 
permitting their children to devour 41 sugar cubes? Who in this body 
would give their child or grandchild 41 sugar cubes to eat?
  The city of New York is taking a bold course of action and other 
communities have done their own studies and have decided to act. In 
Congress, we need to step up and do our part. We need to know what role 
sugary drinks are playing in the childhood obesity epidemic in America. 
My amendment would initiate a study on the impact of these drinks on 
obesity and human health in the United States. It would require an 
examination of public health proposals regarding the cost and the size 
of these drinks. The amendment is endorsed by organizations such as the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, the 
American Diabetes Association, the American Public Health Association, 
and the Center For Science and the Public Interest.
  I reach out, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask 
that, once and for all, we work together to do what we can to protect 
our children--protect them, in this case, from the obesity epidemic. I 
hope we will join together to fight for the well-being of our children.
  I yield the floor and I suggest absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lautenberg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Agriculture Reform

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and 
Jobs Act of 2012, which the Presiding Officer from New Jersey just 
spoke of, in my State called the farm bill, represents the most 
significant reform of U.S. agriculture in decades. It is the product of 
months of policy discussion and late-night deliberations, guided by 
Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts. It is the reason why 
people across the country, farmers and business owners and faith 
leaders and county commissioners are paying attention. The bill 
benefits all of us, all Americans.
  Today, one in seven jobs in Ohio is related to the food and 
agriculture industry. To get the economy back on track, the farm bill 
must remain a priority in Congress. The Agriculture Committee has 
worked to craft a farm bill that is forward-looking and realistic. The 
centerpiece of the bill's deficit reduction efforts is based on a bill 
I authored with my colleague John Thune, a Republican from South 
Dakota, along with Senator Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, and 
Senator Lugar, a Republican from Indiana. Our Aggregate Risk and 
Revenue Management Program proposed streamlining the farm safety net 
and making it more market oriented. The era of direct payments--the 
billions of dollars that newspaper editorial writers and constituents 
alike complained about, these huge farm subsidies that went mostly to 
large corporate farmers--the era of direct payments made annually 
regardless of need under this bill is over.
  Instead, the new Ag Risk Coverage Program will work hand in hand with 
crop insurance to provide farmers the tools needed to manage risk, 
making payments only when farmers need them most.
  The program is market oriented. It relies on market data instead of 
arbitrary numbers in statutes. It is more responsive to farmers' needs 
and more responsible to taxpayers. The bill reforms a number of 
longstanding, unjustifiable practices. For the first time, this farm 
bill ends payments to landowners who have nothing to do with farm 
management. It puts a firm cap on how much support any farmer can 
receive from the direct farm support programs every year. There are 
commonsense reforms that ensure the taxpayer dollars go only where they 
are needed.
  Is there more to be done to make sure taxpayers get the most 
efficient, effective, and affordable farm policy possible? Of course 
there is. In the coming years, we will continue to improve our farm and 
food policy, but

[[Page S4144]]

this is a good start. It is good for farmers, good for taxpayers. It 
continues to move our Nation's food and agriculture policy in a 
positive direction.
  The farm bill is a jobs and innovation bill. Every $1 billion in 
exports supports 8,400 American jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, 
according to the USDA. In 2011, U.S. agriculture enjoyed a trade 
surplus of $42 billion, $42 billion we sold more than we brought in 
from abroad in farm products, the highest annual surplus on record. 
Contrast that with the billions and billions, tens of billions, 
hundreds of billions of dollars in trade deficit we have in 
manufacturing in other parts of our economy.
  There is so much room for growth, not only overseas but also at home. 
Bio-based manufacturing and renewable energy are two examples of the 
potential that American agriculture holds for U.S. economic growth and 
for job creation. Alongside food production, farm-based and renewable 
energy production, such as advanced biomass energy, can serve as the 
engine of the rural economy for decades to come. It is investments in 
agriculture such as this, such as the ones this bill maintains in 
research and energy and bio-based products and food production, that 
will enable continued creation of good-paying jobs, again that will 
not, that cannot be shipped overseas.

  The farm bill provides economic relief to millions of Americans. 
Alhough we call it a farm bill, this bill is fundamentally an economic 
relief bill. For farmers, the bill provides financial assistance to 
weather tough times or adopt conservation practices that protect clean 
water and healthy soils and wildlife habitat. For millions of 
Americans, this bill helps put dinner on the table when wages are tight 
and families are struggling to make ends meet and keeps children from 
going hungry. That is why this bill is so important. I add, the 
Presiding Officer from New Jersey has always been such a strong 
advocate of these nutrition programs. We both understand that more than 
one-third of people who are getting SNAP, who are receiving what we 
used to call food stamps, are working families, people who are only 
making $9, $10, $11 an hour, sometimes working two jobs, and still 
cannot make it without some food assistance.
  The bill includes resources for SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program, which is one of the Nation's most essential 
antipoverty programs. In addition to supporting people who are 
struggling to feed their families, SNAP supports retailers and 
businesses and the farmers and ranchers who grow the food.
  At a time of high unemployment, SNAP participation now exceeds 44 
million Americans, half of whom are children. Many of these families 
are working families. Half the people served by SNAP are children.
  SNAP participation is expected to fall as the economy recovers. The 
bill continues to support SNAP with minimal modifications. It continues 
and increases support for commodity distribution to food banks at a 
time when food pantry shelves in Ohio and across the Nation are bare. 
But I want to be clear. I have serious concerns with the cuts, not 
large cuts such as the House Agriculture Committee wants to do and that 
Senator Paul tried to do--very unsuccessfully--and that Congressman 
Ryan made with his budget from the House of Representatives--nothing 
even close to the tens and tens of billions of dollars they want to cut 
from nutrition. But I am concerned about this $4 billion cut. When 
compared to the $130 billion in cuts to SNAP in the Ryan budget, the 
modification in this bill was done carefully.
  The farm bill is a deficit reduction bill, a jobs bill, an economic 
relief bill. It affects every American every day. I commend, again, 
Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts. Their joint effort to 
work across party lines is to be commended.
  These months of work and deliberation are at risk because some insist 
on debating dozens of unrelated amendments and others seek to score 
political points at the expense of American families and at the expense 
of American farmers. This is not the time to debate conceal-and-carry 
laws or American aid to Pakistan or the future of the Labor Relations 
Board. Not that any of those are not debatable or any of those aren't a 
place where people can have reasonable differences on public policy. 
But conceal and carry, American aid to Pakistan, the future of the 
Labor Relations Board should not be part of the farm bill.

  I urge my colleagues to work together and halt the impasse that keeps 
us from making progress on this bill.
  I am the first Ohio Senator who is a member of the Agriculture 
Committee in 40 years. In my first month in the Senate, I made a 
request to Senator Reid to join the Agriculture Committee, along with 
other duties, because of the importance of agriculture in my State. One 
out of seven jobs in Ohio is related to agriculture. It is the largest 
business, largest industry in my State. It matters so much to Ohio.
  My position on the Agriculture Committee has helped as I have done 
roundtables around Ohio and met with literally hundreds of farmers, 
including grain farmers, dairy farmers, specialty crop farmers, nursery 
farmers, tree farmers, experts at Ohio State in the agriculture school, 
and I have come prepared to help write this farm bill both back in 2007 
and this year. This is a major step forward. It is something of which 
we can be proud.

                          ____________________